The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Washington Visit of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on their recent visit to Washington.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Deputy First Minister and I will make a statement on our recent visit to Washington. The Deputy First Minister and I flew to Washington on 12 September. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am somewhat surprised that the Member, having returned to the House of Commons, is not aware that the rules of that place also apply in large measure here, not least with regard to the bringing in of visual aids.

Rev William McCrea: I was just trying to be helpful.

Mr Speaker: Order. Resume your seat.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the subsequent sentences in this statement will be equally warmly received.
We were accompanied on the visit by the head of the Civil Service and other officials. Our purpose in visiting Washington at this time was fourfold: first, to brief PresidentClinton on developments here; secondly, to invite him to visit Northern Ireland while still President; thirdly, to meet other members of the Administration in order to build relationships in a number of important areas; fourthly, to pave the way for future visits by ministerial colleagues from the Northern Ireland Executive.
On Tuesday 12 September, we met George Mitchell to update him on developments. We had a useful exchange, and he expressed the hope that continuing progress to implement the agreement fully would be maintained so that Northern Ireland might have lasting peace, stability and reconciliation.
Our first engagement on Wednesday was a meeting with the Deputy Secretary for Education, Mr Frank Holleman. This meeting allowed us to express our appreciation for the high level of support and co-operation which Secretary Richard Riley has offered the Department of Education and the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. Both sides wish this to continue and develop. The meeting addressed how the education system could best meet the needs of pupils of all abilities. We also looked at vocational training and noted the importance of partnership with employers in providing young people with the skills needed to find employment in their areas.
We welcomed the invitations extended to departmental officials from Northern Ireland to attend a conference in West Virginia last week on the use of information and communications technology (ICT) in education. Deputy Secretary Holleman thanked the Administration here for the invitation to US experts in special educational needs to visit Northern Ireland this autumn.
On Wednesday 11 September, the Deputy First Minister and I met President Clinton and his advisers. We thanked him for his tremendous input while in office in helping us to make progress here. We drew attention to the growing links between our Administrations, and both sides agreed that these contacts should be encouraged. We briefed the President on the progress that has been made by the new institutions here.
At this point I would like to hand over to the Deputy First Minister.

Mr Seamus Mallon: We updated the President on the problems that society here continues to face, including the attacks by Republican dissidents and the senseless and needless violence in Loyalism, which has caused a number of murders. We stressed the need to secure the implementation of all elements of the agreement. Our views on police reforms and the need for further progress with the decommissioning of all illegal weapons were highlighted.
We invited the President to visit Northern Ireland again before he leaves office. He left us in no doubt about his high level of continuing interest in affairs here. He indicated that he would very much like to visit again, subject to finding a suitable time in his diary.
In a useful meeting with the Deputy Secretary of Labor, Edward Montgomery, we discussed a range of important matters, including the desirability of matching skills to the needs of employers, the best way of addressing the problem of long-term unemployment and how inequalities of pay on the basis of gender and disability can be tackled. We noted with interest projects being undertaken in the USA to tackle these and related problems. The importance of developing still better relationships and of learning from best practice in both jurisdictions was stressed.
We also briefed Madeleine Albright’s Deputy at the State Department, Strobe Talbott, on progress since the resumption of devolution, and we had useful discussions with both the British and Irish Ambassadors to the US.
In addition to the joint programme of meetings, the First Minister and I undertook a number of separate engagements.
In summary, both the First Minister and I regard our visit as having been very worthwhile. Besides the President, we met a wide range of influential people interested in the peace process and willing to offer genuine and concrete support. Above all, our visit showed that we can learn from the experiences elsewhere in tackling common problems. The development of our contacts can help us to learn lessons which will help us to meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. Increasingly, we too will have positive experiences and programmes to share with others.
The objectives of the trip were met. This was the first time that we had visited the United States as First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the warmth of our reception was testament to the close interest and support for the new institutions which exist in the United States.

Mr Edwin Poots: The statement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister suggests that our views on police reform were put to the President. Was that view a concerted one, or, as the press has reported it, were two disparate points of view put forward in something that was more like a schoolyard squabble than the dialogue of statesmen?
I want the First and the Deputy First Ministers to apologise to the taxpayers of Northern Ireland for the Deputy First Minister’s change of coat half way through to take up his role as deputy leader of the SDLP. Instead of representing the people of Northern Ireland, he represented the views of his political party when speaking of police issues to important United States bodies.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The First Minister and I are at one when representing the Executive on matters relating to the devolved Administration. On non-devolved matters, there are differences of view on important issues such as policing, but we both accept the importance of a police service which is accountable, widely acceptable to the community and representative of that community.
As Deputy First Minister, I was invited to speak to the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. In New York, I also undertook a number of engagements with the press and the British and Irish Consuls General. Prior to the visit, my office confirmed with the head of the Civil Service that it could be undertaken at public expense. Both the First Minister and I have undertaken separate visits on this basis before.

Mr John Dallat: Was the future of the Walsh Visa Programme raised by the Ministers at meetings with the US Administration?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Yes, we discussed that programme with the Department of Labor and with Mr Walsh himself. The programme has had some teething problems, but there is a strong desire to continue with it.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat. I refer to the meeting that the First and the Deputy First Ministers had with the Deputy Secretary for Labor, Edmond Montgomery. What emerged from their discussions on the problems of long-term unemployment and how to tackle inequalities in society here?

Mr Seamus Mallon: We had a very interesting meeting. The Deputy Secretary had a number of officials with him, notably those dealing with both racial and gender inequality. It was interesting to discuss the programmes they have for dealing with those problems. The most interesting thing from our point of view was that the difficulties they are experiencing with their programmes are often the same as we are encountering with ours.
We also discussed the Walsh visas. Among the first people we met at a reception in Washington were eight or ten young people who were there on Walsh visas. The way in which those young people comported themselves was a credit to all of us. They were able to make cases, not just for their own lives, but for all our futures. It is crucial that we maintain this type of contact. On the basis of that discussion, our background information and the meeting that we had with the Education Department — the Minister of Education, Martin McGuinness, has also been there and the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, Dr Farren will go shortly — I have no doubt that there are elements in their programmes that we can learn from. They too are keen to learn from our life here.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their statement, and I am pleased to hear that they believe that the objectives of their visit have been achieved. This was their first visit as the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and, when such trips are undertaken, it is important that at no time should party politics be seen to intervene. I say so in the interests of the Assembly. As we have already heard this morning, whenever there are disputes and disagreements over sensitive issues and either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister is, for whatever reason, inclined to don his party hat, that in itself brings the Assembly into a certain amount of disrepute. It also —

Mr Speaker: Order. I must press the Member to put his question. This is an opportunity to put questions, not to make statements.

Mr Seamus Close: Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that this provides the enemies of the Assembly with an opportunity to take out a whip and beat us across the back? Do they agree that, in future, they should be seen to be operating in unison throughout the entirety of their trips?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I think that there is a problem of perception. I can assure the Member that, in the meetings that we had in the White House and with those who have responsibility for labour and education, matters were presented — and this was appreciated by the people whom we met — in the spirit that he mentions. There is no point in meeting people who are well informed and putting up a false front. There are areas where disagreements exist, and that is known. Those disagreements were argued, not in a party political spirit, but in a spirit of informing people of what the position was and what the different perspectives were.
I can appreciate the perception that the Member has, but I believe that that perspective is largely formed by the quality of the reportage in this country, which tended to emphasise the points of difference and did so in a tendentious manner. Many of the people who were with us on the trip will confirm what I have said about the good spirit that existed and that things were presented in a mature and balanced manner.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their statement and congratulate them on the success of their trip to Washington. I wish to underline the importance of links with the United States and how important it is that we go there and are seen to be there.
With regard to the Walsh visas — and I realise that two questions have already been asked on that subject — can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister explain how the company Logicon, which, I believe, majors more in defence matters, was chosen to co-ordinate the visa programme? Do they agree that insufficient resources were put into training and induction before the young people left for the visa programme? How do they intend to resolve that matter?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The first part of the question is a departmental matter, and must be addressed to the Minister responsible. It is not within our remit, but we will ensure that a full reply is given in writing.
With regard to the second part of the question, there have been problems with the Walsh visas; problems that were not of the making of any of the people who were responsible for the programme, and I believe that that fact was recognised. Sometimes things happen that are outside the remit of those who are in control. I believe that those matters will be resolved and that we all know what one of them is.
It is essential that we keep in contact with those responsible for various Departments in the United States and try to ensure that the qualities that those young people showed in Washington are developed. We should not be deterred on this issue, or on any other, by the type of hiccup that occurred in relation to the Walsh visas.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the First Minister and the Deputy FirstMinister tell the House if it was during or after their meeting with the President of the UnitedStates that he expressed his full support for the implementation of the Patten Report and for Sinn Féin/IRA’s interpretation of it?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I cannot comment on the second point, for I never heard the President use those terms. We had a 45-minute meeting with the President, which went a little over time, as such meetings sometimes do. There is no doubt at all about the extent of his interest and his pleasure at seeing things working here. We were able to give him a full account of the Assembly’s success and the way in which, despite the occasional sour comment from a certain corner of the Assembly Chamber, all of its Members are working hard together in a good spirit and pulling their weight.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirimse fáilte roimh ráiteas na maidine seo. I wish to welcome this morning’s statement. My interest lies in the meeting held on Wednesday 13September with the DeputySecretary of Education, MrFrank HollemanIII. This follows on from contacts with the Secretary of Education, RichardRiley, continuing to explore areas of educational co-operation for our mutual benefit. The statement says that the meeting addressed how the education system could best meet the needs of pupils of all abilities. This dovetails neatly with an inquiry into underachievement being conducted by the Education Committee. I should like to hear some further detail of what was discussed.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The meeting was extremely interesting, and MrHolleman was accompanied by a number of officials working in various sections of the US education programme. We discussed how lack of attainment is linked to social or economic deprivation and what programmes can be developed to combat the problem. They had some very interesting things to say. Attainment, especially in maths, is seeping right down into the core of their programme — something from which we could learn. They also pointed out the difficulties of the programme very honestly to us. Secretary Riley was not present — he was, quite rightly, at the hustings — but the effect of the contacts which have taken place between him, the Department here and various people in the Assembly is very important.
We discussed a range of matters, particularly vocational training and arrangements to ensure that students are given the appropriate skills to meet local employers’ needs. We also discussed the good co-operation already taking place, as evidenced by our education officials’ attending a recent conference in Virginia and by US experts’ visiting Dublin to share expertise on autism and dyslexia. Northern experts will also attend that meeting. Of these very positive meetings, this was probably the most interesting, at least for me. As they have been initiated, they should be followed up.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I notice that the First Minister has made no mention in the statement of the party political canvassing on policing engaged in by the Deputy FirstMinister while they were in America. Is it not a fact that, once again, just as he has been conned by TonyBlair, Gerry Adams, BertieAhern and others, the Deputy FirstMinister — I should say the FirstMinister — has been conned by the FirstMinister on this issue of policing? Does the First Minister agree with the conclusions reached in this statement — that the visit was worthwhile and that the trip’s objectives were met? Were the objectives of the trip once more to denigrate the RUC and call on the President of the United States to endorse the changes which the SDLP and IRA/Sinn Féin wish to be made to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill before Westminster? If that is the case, how can the FirstMinister claim that his party defends the RUC?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Unfortunately that question was largely predictable, although the Member did at times get muddled between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The general sense of these predictable comments came across and has already been dealt with in previous answers.
Quite clearly, the objectives of the visit were achieved. The meetings in the White House and with other Departments were successful. We look forward to a visit by President Clinton, it is hoped before the end of the year, which will be welcomed generally.
On the specific points that he mentions, the key thing is that the agreement, which was endorsed by 71% of the voters in Northern Ireland, be implemented in full. That involves a whole range of matters, including matters of interpretation. However, the important thing is that the agreement is implemented in full, and we look forward to that.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Is it in order —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not accepting any further points of order.

Civic Forum

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the Civic Forum.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I wish to make the following statement on the Civic Forum on behalf of the First Minister and myself.
We are pleased to make this statement on the Civic Forum. The Forum is one more step in the realisation of the vision of the Good Friday Agreement. The Forum is a unique body with a membership comprising a wide breadth of experience. It is in keeping with the new era in which we are now operating that, through the Forum and the other institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, we embrace these progressive and positive developments in inclusive democracy.
On 16 February 1999, the Assembly approved the proposals set out in our report in relation to establishing the consultative Civic Forum. That report proposed that the Forum would be comprised of 60 members and a chairman. The allocation of places to the Civic Forum is as follows: business 7; agriculture/fisheries 3; trade unions 7; voluntary/community 18; churches 5; culture 4; arts and sport 4; victims 2; community relations 2; education 2; First Minister and Deputy First Minister 6.
The first meeting of the Civic Forum will be on Monday 9October in the BT Studio in the Waterfront Hall. Future meetings will also be held in venues outside Belfast.
In our report to the Assembly, we identified the organisations that would be invited to develop a nomination process for each sector. Those involved in the nomination process were advised that appointments should adhere to the principles applicable to all public appointments and have regard to equality of opportunity, merit, openness and transparency. They should also seek to achieve balance in terms of gender, community background, a geographical spread across Northern Ireland and age. Each of the sectors submitted its procedures to us for approval and has made its nominations in accordance with those procedures. One nomination, from the agriculture/fisheries sector, remains outstanding. We shall advise the Assembly when the membership from that sector is complete.
Of the six members appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I have made three: BrianO’Reilly, regional president of the Society of St Vincent de Paul, which works at the coalface of poverty; Sharon Haughey, a 19-year-old student who came to the public eye in 1998 when, as a 17-year-old, she shared a platform in Armagh with President Clinton, the First Minister and myself; and Hugh Frazer, director of the Combat Poverty Agency.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I have made the following three nominations: Mr Gary McMichael, leader of the Ulster Democratic Party; Mr Richard Monteith, a solicitor whose clients include Portadown District of the Orange Order; and Mrs Betty McClurg, who is the chairperson of the Southern Education and Library Board.
We would like to pay tribute to all the organisations and individuals that worked so hard to help us achieve our goal of establishing the Civic Forum in what proved to be a very short time. We have now ratified their nominations to the Civic Forum, and we have placed a list of its members in the Assembly Library. The list includes the six members appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
We have also appointed Mr Chris Gibson as chairperson of the Civic Forum. He is well known for his business experience, including his contribution to the IDB and the CBI. This knowledge, combined with his work in the Irish School of Ecumenics, makes him a uniquely suited person to hold the chair. We know that his wisdom will help to ensure that the Civic Forum achieves its full potential.
The agreement provides that the Civic Forum will act as a consultative mechanism on social, economic and cultural matters. We anticipate that the Assembly will, over time, develop a constructive relationship with the Civic Forum in order to avail of its experience on social, economic and cultural matters.
As the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, we are required to provide the Forum with its administrative support, and, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we are required — with the approval of the Assembly — to make arrangements for obtaining from the Forum its views on social, economic and cultural matters. We hope shortly to bring forward a proposal for this for approval by the Assembly.

Mr Edwin Poots: Did the Orange Order make nominations to the Civic Forum? Were any of its nominations taken up? It seems strange to me that, in spite of the fact that there was to be equality in the Civic Forum and a cross-community element, one of the largest — probably the largest — organisation in the Protestant community has been snubbed.

Rt Hon David Trimble: We were responsible for overlooking — or approving, to be precise — the nomination procedure. [Interruption] We ensured that open and fair procedures were established, and we are satisfied, from the information available, that this has happened. There was a sector focusing on cultural matters, from which a number of nominations came. I will not go in to the details, but I think that when the Member looks at the list in the Library, he will find that there is balance. He knows — at least, there are people sitting close to him who can tell him — that MrMonteith, whom I appointed, also holds office in the Orange Order.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I welcome the setting of a date for the first meeting of the Civic Forum. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that one of the first issues that should be debated is the relationship between ill health and poverty? Do they agree that age and gender balance in the membership of the Forum is essential if it is to be truly representative?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member is absolutely correct, and I agree with her. There is no doubt that the views of the unemployed will be represented by a number of members. While this is not a direct answer to the question, the relationship between unemployment, poverty and ill health is so stark that we will have to look at it in those terms.
The trade unions have nominated one person with experience of working with the unemployed and those suffering ill health in the Derry Unemployed Centre. Also, one of the nominees from the voluntary community sector comes from the Organisation for the Unemployed in the North of Ireland. A number of people on the list are from the voluntary sector and have a direct interest in health matters.
I believe that that area is covered, perhaps not fully, but as fully as possible under a system such as this. The element of initiative that might come from young people in the Forum, and from the involvement of others who deal with poverty on the ground, is also a factor in catering for health.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the setting up of the Civic Forum as recommended in the Good Friday Agreement. It is two and a half years since we signed the agreement, so certainly it is welcome. During the deliberations on the Forum, Sinn Féin flagged up a number of concerns. The party was very unhappy with the proposed format of the representative nominating bodies in the remit.
I must say to Mr Trimble that I am very unhappy with his appointments. The statement says
"We anticipate that the Assembly will over time develop a constructive relationship with the Forum, in order to avail of its experience on social, economic and cultural matters."
How do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister propose to make this happen? What mechanisms will be put in place to bring forward the Assembly’s proposals, and what timescale are we talking about?

Rt Hon David Trimble: First, we achieved the target that we, with the approval of the Assembly, set for ourselves in terms of having the Forum operating within six months of devolution. That is quite a credit, and I must pay tribute to the staff in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for the work that they have done. It was a very difficult job to deal with a wide range of bodies and to encourage the formation of consortia to make nominations. The persons responsible for carrying it through so successfully deserve our thanks.
In my appointments, my overriding concern was to ensure that there was a balance. Each of the three nominations that I made was specifically to ensure that balance and inclusion did occur. We all want to see — and it is very much a strong theme of the agreement itself — that there is equality and inclusion. Consequently one insured, as far as one could with a limited number appointments, that that was done.
At this stage, I cannot give any detail on the arrangements by which we will obtain the views of the Forum on social, economic and cultural matters, because we have not yet had the chance to consult. It is not appropriate for us to be over-prescriptive at this stage. We will want to meet the chairman of the Forum and consult him. We will want to then consider how best to do this. We will want to consult the Assembly, because the Forum is there to provide advice to the Assembly. It is something which deserves a little consideration. Obviously, arrangements have to be made to enable the Forum to function as quickly as possible, but we need time to reflect on that.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for announcing the names for the Civic Forum. I am not trying to undermine their respective nominations, but do they not agree that this was a lost opportunity to show that Northern Ireland was moving forward in a more cross-community, pluralist basis, rather than to appoint people from their respective religious communities? Had there been a cross-community aspect to their individual nominations, that would have sent a very powerful message to the community. Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister inform me of how many applications were made from the various sectors? I understand that in some sectors there was very little competition. A breakdown of the number of people who applied would be helpful.

Mr Seamus Mallon: It should be recognised that the appointments do have a cross-community element. One of the appointments that I have made falls into that category. I agree with the Member on that. I am very pleased that a person of Mr Frazer’s quality and contribution to life in the North of Ireland has accepted the nomination.
I cannot give the exact number of those who made representations. I will write to the Member and inform him. We read them all carefully. Representations were also made verbally. There were substantial representations from various interest groups, sectors within the community and political organisations.
I agree with the Member that the Civic Forum has to be different. It has to have its own mind and it has to bring an independent view to the political process. I hope it will.

Mr Norman Boyd: How did the First Minister arrive at his decision to exclude the Grand Orange Lodge, which has a huge number of members in Ireland, from his nominations while including Gary McMichael of the UDP, particularly at a time when innocent Protestants have to endure untold heartache at the hands of a pro-agreement paramilitary organisation? Will he further tell the House which prominent office Richard Monteith holds in the Grand Orange Lodge, if any?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I want to pick up on a comment made earlier, from a sedentary position, which displayed a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the process. A number of sectors were identified in respect of which applications would be invited. Within that there was a nominating process. It would have been quite inappropriate to give a specific body such as the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland the power to nominate an individual, which seems to be the thought of some Members.
This should not be a surprise to the Member, because the arrangements for the consortia and the sectors were debated in the Chamber and approved by the Assembly. So far as I recall, no point was made in that debate along the lines suggested by the Member. We can examine the record. The decision was made in the Assembly.
As to the particular office that Mr Monteith holds, if the Member asks along the Benches there, he will find someone very well qualified to give him the answer.

Mr Denis Watson: Following on from that question, does the First Minister agree with me that the Orange Institution has always played an important part in civic society in Northern Ireland? If so, why did he not recognise this when making his appointments to the Civic Forum and ensure that the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland was officially represented, bearing in mind the assurances that were given by the Prime Minister to the Orange Institution some time ago?
Will he tell the House how many members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland applied for membership of the Civic Forum and were unsuccessful? I can confirm that neither worshipful brother Richard Monteith nor the several other Orangemen who have been appointed will be representing the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I am not as well informed on these matters as the Member who asked the question. I understand that the person who has been appointed is the Member’s deputy in one of the areas of —

Mr Denis Watson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not correct.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I said "I understand".

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Seamus Mallon: If that is not the case I will withdraw it and apologise to the Assemblyman. It is the advice that I have been given — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Seamus Mallon: As I have already said, I am not as well versed in these matters as many other Assembly Members.
With regard to the nominations, I was surprised that there was not one from the Orange Order. I would have welcomed a recommendation from them or from the Apprentice Boys. I have always held the view — and I expressed it last week — that the Civic Forum is not just something we should feel comfortable with; it is a body that should bring in the total width of views in the North of Ireland. I ask the Assembly to accept that, and if I am wrong I will make the matter right very quickly.

Prof Monica McWilliams: As a representative of the party that first proposed a Civic Forum, I am heartened to hear that the Worshipful Brothers, and Worshipful Sisters, from the Orange Order were looking for places on it, especially when so much criticism of it came from the DUP in the first instance.
Is it intended that the Civic Forum should set its own agenda and priorities, rather than those matters being decided here? We did not have clarification on the arrangements, and I understand that, but that is my understanding of how it is to operate.
I commend the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for establishing the Forum. However, it is a pity that those who have been critical of it did not take the opportunity to co-operate. I am sure that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would agree that many of the sectors spent over a year, through self-nomination, selection and elections, trying to fulfil the participative nature of the Forum. Will those critics also take the opportunity to congratulate those who established the Forum?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I agree. It is remarkable to see the interest and desire shown in certain quarters in being part of the Civic Forum. This indicates that those evincing that desire wholly approve of the Civic Forum. They are clearly in favour of it, just as in the case of the other institutions of the agreement. One wonders why they describe themselves as anti-agreement when they are clearly endorsing it by their behaviour.
Under the legislation, there is a clear responsibility on us to make arrangements for obtaining the Forum’s views on a number of matters. Those arrangements could take a several forms — they do not have to be exhaustive. It does not necessarily follow that the arrangements made to enable the Assembly to take the views of the Forum cover all that the Forum does. However, the Forum must operate in social, economic and cultural matters. As I have already said, this is a matter where some reflection and consultation would be appropriate. Until now, our objective was to establish the Forum and get the nominations. We had a very tight timetable and we are delighted to have achieved it. We are going to try and achieve other things with regard to the Forum just as efficiently.

Mr Jim Shannon: Considering the current level of input that all relevant groups already have, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the Civic Forum is another level of unnecessary bureaucracy? Is it coincidental that the Civic Forum includes people who failed to gain an electoral mandate for the Assembly?
Will the Minister tell us the cost of each individual’s wages and the overall cost of the Civil Forum? This is especially relevant as more money is required for health, education, roads and meeting the costs that organisations need to look after constituents.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Civic Forum is not part of bureaucracy. The key element is that it is part of the imaginative independent thinking that exists in the North of Ireland right across the board. I hope that Members will look upon it as that. The administrative costs associated with the Civic Forum will not be clear until the Forum is operational. A notional figure of £300,000 has been allocated for the current financial year; it may be more or it may be less. It will be reviewed in the light of experience. The budget for the Forum will cover staff costs, office running costs, members’ expenses, research and the cost of hosting plenary and other meetings.
The post of chairman of the Civic Forum was widely advertised to attract the best possible field of candidates. The cost of advertising was some £10,000. Eight of the nominating sectors placed advertisements in local newspapers to offer the widest possible opportunity to all members of the community in Northern Ireland to apply for the Forum. Those advertising costs amounted to some £40,000.

Mr Jim Wells: I note with interest the silence from the Ulster Unionist Back Benches. Perhaps those Members had a rough night on Thursday.
Does the FirstMinister agree —[Interruption] He cannot take it. Does he agree that never has so much money been spent — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the FirstMinister agree that never has so much money been spent in appointing so many lapdogs in the history of Northern Ireland? Can he confirm that the original estimate for this whole process was £10,000 to £15,000, and that the nomination process for the Civic Forum has increased that by a factor of five or six? This makes the budgeting for the millennium dome look extremely proper. Can he confirm the total cost of the entire nomination process, and can he confirm that, as was shown on Thursday night, this Forum is not representative of the people of Northern Ireland because the majority of people in the Province are opposed to the whole sordid process?

Rt Hon David Trimble: On the Assembly Member’s first point, he should consider the good manners displayed by all parties here, bar his own.That might lead him to reflect on his own behaviour or his party’s behaviour. I know that outside this Chamber the Member is not as rude as the people who sit beside him.
We very much regret that during the session we had with the Committee of the Centre last week, I said on advice from officials, that the cost of the nominating process was estimated at £10,000 to £15,000. That answer was incorrect, and we have acknowledged that in writing to the Committee Chairman, as the Member knows. The Deputy First Minister has, in his answer, given more accurate information on the costs. It is obviously undesirable that inaccurate information was given. When we discovered that that was the case, we moved, as we have done this morning, to correct that.

Mr Paul Berry: As one who works closely with the victims, and especially people who have suffered so much trauma and so many problems over this past 30years, I ask the FirstMinister and the Deputy FirstMinister why the victims are so grossly under-represented in the Civic Forum. When one thinks of the thousands of people in Northern Ireland over the past 30years who have been affected by the troubles, it is a shame that there are only two victims’ representatives.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member will be as aware as I am that the Assembly decided the numbers that each consortium would select. That was a collective decision by the Assembly of which we are all part. The report agreed by the Assembly provided that organisations working with victims should be invited to assist in ensuring that the concerns of victims are represented on the Civic Forum through two nominations. A consortium was established to develop a selection process for the nominations. It represented a wide cross-section of those working with victims, including groups from outside Belfast, groups recently established and those in existence since the early part of the troubles of the past 30 years.

Mr Patrick Roche: I would like the First Minister to return to a question raised by my Colleague and deal with the part concerning Gary McMichael. The appointment of McMichael is completely incomprehensible. McMichael represents no economic or cultural body. Not only has he no electoral mandate but his entire party was wiped out in the 1998 elections. The only significant claim to political status that this man has is that he gives political analysis — to use his own term — to a so-called loyalist terror organisation. Anyone who pays a blind bit of attention to anything that he says must be even more politically gullible than he is. However, on a more serious point, in appointing that man, the First Minister has obscured the issue of decommissioning.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member was making a point. This is an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr Patrick Roche: I am asking the First Minister to explain clearly to the Assembly why he appointed Gary McMichael.

Rt Hon David Trimble: As I indicated earlier, the clear intention was to be inclusive. Mr McMichael is the leader of a political party. It is true that his party did not win any seats in the Assembly, but it does hold a number of seats at local government level. I considered it desirable, in the context of inclusion, to give a measure of representation in the Forum to that party. He is not the only councillor in the Forum.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I note the First Minister’s last reply when he said that he intended that the list would be inclusive. Obviously, that does not include the Orange Order, and it does not include many of the people who voted against the agreement. As we look through the list, we can see that it is made up of the membership of the Ulster Unionist Party, political failures, IRA terrorists, and yes-men. Does the First Minister agree that this kind of cronyism is of a kind that would make even Tony Blair blush? What credibility can an organisation made up of cronies, failures and IRA bomb-makers possibly have when it comes to public pronouncements?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for the question. I have heard numerous descriptions —failures, lapdogs, yes-men and cronies. I am not sure if we are reading the same list, for when I look at it I see the names of a large number of very independent- minded and strong-willed people. I think that that is good for a body such as the Civic Forum, and I repeat that I welcome the type of inclusion that has taken place. It is unfair to describe people who have made a contribution — maybe we do not like their contribution — to the life of this country as cronies, failures, lapdogs and yes-men.
I make one last point. We should never be comfortable with the Civic Forum. It should be there as an independent place where there is independent thought. Of course, there are those within the political process who are more afraid of independent thought than they are of anything else.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: How can the First and Deputy First Ministers justify these appointees to the crony Forum? The number of trade union representatives is triple the number of representatives of the victims and double the number of representatives from the agricultural community; the voluntary sector has almost double the representation of the combined interests of the business and agricultural sectors; and the number of First and Deputy First Ministers’ appointees is triple the number of those representing victims. How do they justify victims’ having to sit with people like Donncha MacNiallais, who actually created victims in Northern Ireland? What recourse, if any, have victims, the Orange Order, and the other snubbed groups and individuals to appeal those decisions?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I remind the Member that the arrangements for the distribution of members were approved in the Assembly on 16February 1999 — quite some time ago. The hon Member is a little bit late in making his complaints about these matters.
There is, however, an opportunity for us to review the operation of the arrangements. In the report that the Deputy First Minister and I placed before the Assembly for the debate on 16February 1999 we indicated that we would review the operation of the arrangements 12months after the appointment of the Civic Forum. That we will do.

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to make the point that there are 22 —

Mr Speaker: Order. I must draw to the Member’s attention that this is an opportunity not to make a point but to put a question.

Ms Jane Morrice: My question concerns the fact that only 22 of the 59 appointees are women. In the spirit of equality, will the First and Deputy First Ministers agree that there should be a 50:50 gender balance in the Civic Forum? Why did they not use their nominations to correct that imbalance?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I take the Member’s point. However, she should also recognise that, in our nominations, the First Minister and myself did try to redress that imbalance. I should also point out that decisions of the consortia that chose the Members were greatly influenced by the matter that she raises. We did try to help in our nominations. Maybe it should have been more, maybe next time it will be, but there was a wide field to cover, and we had to make sure that young people, those involved with poverty, those involved with health, those involved with all the different areas were represented. I think, on balance, when we look again at the final list we will conclude that it may not be perfect, but it is as near as possible under the present system.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, SirRegEmpey, that he wishes to make a statement on Harland & Wolff. [Interruption]
The Deputy First Minister on a point of order.

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is not a point of order, but perhaps you would indulge me for a second. I am now aware that I gave inaccurate information in response to the question from Mr Watson. I regret it very much. He is someone I have dealt with in very difficult times and in a very honest way, so I apologise to him personally. I also apologise to the Assembly, and I ask that those remarks be withdrawn. I must take more of an interest in those matters so that I will not give faulty information again.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly will be grateful that the Minister has, with such alacrity, moved to correct the matter on the Floor of the House.

Harland & Wolff

Sir Reg Empey: The future of Harland & Wolff has been at the forefront of the news in recent days, and I have been following events closely. I am obviously very concerned about the recently announced redundancies at the shipyard and in particular, the impact that they will have on the livelihoods of employees, their families and the local community. I have already expressed my deep personal regret about that and reiterate it today.
The situation arises as part of an overall re-structuring of the Harland & Wolff group in response to very difficult market conditions. The company has been in private ownership through the FredOlsen Group for some 11years now, following privatisation in September1989. At that time, approximately 2,400 people were employed by the company. My officials continue to do everything we can to assist the company in its search for viable new work. We have already, since I became Minister, acted flexibly and constructively in all our dealings with the company. I have supported the business in a tangible, often imaginative way through stage payment of intervention aid grant for the two major deepwater drill ship contracts and for the conditional contract, as yet unconfirmed, with Seamasters International for four roll-on roll-off passenger ferries, towards which we have made a conditional offer of intervention aid grant at the maximum possible level permitted under EU rules.
Furthermore, Ministers and Departments in Belfast and London have worked very hard and continue to make strenuous efforts in support of the company and its endeavours to seek new work. I must pay tribute to colleagues in the Executive who have been helpful in this matter.
However, contracts are placed commercially on price, competitive and technical criteria. They are subject to the buyer’s ability to structure suitable funding arrangements and satisfy terms and conditions for bank finance. My Department will continue to play our part by providing all the help that we can by way of intervention aid grant for new orders contracted by the company, and in any other way permitted under the terms of the EU Shipbuilding Regulation (ECNo 9506/98).
The success of the Harland & Wolff bid to win a recent contract was the results of the efforts that we have made and the unprecedented level of support for the shipyard’s bid to win this contract. Although I was not acting in a ministerial role earlier this year, when the QueenMaryII contract negotiations were taking place, I discussed the project with Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and with the Deputy Prime Minister, who took a great personal interest in this contract and did a lot of work to secure the order for the United Kingdom and for Belfast. I am confident that the work done by Ministers here and in London will continue. As with any of these deals, it is not simply a matter of IDB assistance, there are huge finances necessary through ship mortgage guarantee schemes as run by the Department of Trade and Industry and, of course, there is the commercial bank sector. So there are three different sectors involved in putting together any order.
In support of the attempt to win the QueenMary contract, the FirstMinister and I met the president and senior executives of Carnival Corporation. I have also written to the Ministry of Defence about bringing forward order programmes and to press for Harland & Wolff’s case to share in future defence work. I stand ready to do everything I can to assist the company to secure new orders from that quarter. There is more that other Members of the House can do in that regard by continuing to lobby strongly with the Ministry of Defence and so strengthen the case for the company.
I also highlighted at ministerial level the difficult and aggressive global market place in which Harland & Wolff is competing, when the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry called together the UK’s shipbuilding forum in early July to discuss the way ahead for the UK industry as a whole. Several topics were discussed, including our ability to help the shipbuilding industry under EU regulations, a range of activities with regard to training and the high-level age profile of the workforce in the shipbuilding industry — the fact that there are not sufficient young people coming in to the industry. The point was also raised that the UK share of world shipping is at an all-time low.
Since coming into office, I have made it a priority to maintain open contact with senior management at Harland & Wolff and with Fred Olsen Energy ASA, as well as with various representatives of the trade union movement at the shipyard. Frequent meetings have been held with all parties in recent months, and that contact will be maintained.
The Department is working closely with the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment (DHFETE) and with agencies and training providers to ensure that suitable job opportunities are identified for those affected by redundancy. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Farren for his close personal interest in this matter. Colleagues in the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment are standing ready to assist those in the company who may eventually be affected by the current situation and to help with re-training and the identification of other job opportunities where possible.
As an immediate and, I believe, constructive response to the situation faced by the company, we propose to set up a task force representing our two Departments to address three main priority areas. The first of these is the co-ordination of the setting up of a Training and Employment Agency temporary jobcentre to provide advice on redundancy as well as information on retraining and job opportunities. The second is to fully support the company in its search for new profitable work, making use of IDB’s overseas network as appropriate, and the third is to work with the company to examine opportunities for other uses of the manufacturing facilities. Membership of the task force will include the chief executive of the Training and Employment Agency and the deputy chief executive of the IDB. The group will work closely with the Engineering Training Council in carrying out its remit.
Harland & Wolff has a long and distinguished tradition as a shipbuilder and employer in Northern Ireland. It is an impressively well-invested yard with excellent skills and competencies and a large number of talented people with whom to build for the future. We will do everything possible to help sustain that future and assist the company to grow competitively in areas of shipbuilding, heavy industry and offshore construction. In the end, however, that can come only from the company’s bringing in commercially viable new contracts. With colleagues, we stand ready to play our full part and do everything we possibly can to help, both through the work of the task force and in any other way possible. I will continue to follow events in the company and will keep the Assembly informed as and when appropriate.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I want publicly to acknowledge all the efforts that he, as an individual, and his Department have put into dealing with the crisis at Harland & Wolff. Does the Minister agree that time is not on our side and that every effort must be made? It must involve the UK Government to ensure that the potential order for four roll-on roll-off vessels for Seamasters International will be secured. Also, I believe there is a need for an investigation into the operations of Global Marine. Does the Minister agree? We have seen the closure of a French shipyard in similar circumstances, and I think that this matter needs to be looked at very closely indeed.

Sir Reg Empey: I agree with the Member that time is of the essence.
The situation is that 613 workers, who have not yet been individually identified, are facing the dole. Those people will have families and friends and also financial commitments. We are dealing with a personal as well as commercial issues.
With regard to the roll-on roll-off ferry order, there has been a tendency in recent months for several newpapers to report that Harland & Wolff has obtained huge orders. I wish to sound a note of caution here as these reports of orders being achieved are inaccurate and misleading. All that has happened is that companies have indicated, perhaps with a letter of intent, that they wish to pursue negotiations towards an order. A letter of intent does not constitute a contract. It merely indicates a degree of interest, and we must not get focused on particular individual contracts. That is where we have fallen down before.
These are commercially sensitive matters, and I cannot get into detail. However, with regard to the Seamasters International contract, the Department, through IDB, has made an indicative offer. Negotiations still have to take place on some matters. The Executive have been supportive. We have put a funding package together which has never been done before anywhere in the European Union, and certainly not in the United Kingdom. We look forward to having the opportunity to complete our negotiations on that. However, it has to be stressed that the key issue is that the company and its customer reach a commercial contract which puts the finance in place. Only at that stage does our involvement become critical. I can assure the Member that we are conscious of the time issue. The company, in its press statement, said that while it was proposing to make 613 people redundant, the security of the remaining workforce depended on securing new work quickly and improvements in productivity. We are not out of the woods yet, and the hon Member knows that.

Mr Peter Robinson: To conform with the procedures of the House, I have to draw attention to an interest that I have declared in the Register of Members’ Interests.
I thank the Minister for having kept me informed and briefed on matters relating to the shipyard in which his Department has been involved over recent months. That is both appreciated and helpful. I assure the Minister that I will continue to work with him in attempting to secure more work for the yard.
I have two questions. One relates to training issues and the other to land issues. With regard to training, I am sure that the Minister is aware that when a workforce is reduced to the level of Harland & Wolff’s, many key skills could be lost to the firm, should there be a new order. Can the Minister ensure that there will be proper training to ensure that, if a new order is received, there will be people with the proper skills available?
I remind the Minister that the Training and Employment Agency premises at Dundonald were closed down and that there is a need for more training facilities and funding in east Belfast. I trust that within the task force he can make that a telling point.
With reference to the land issue, I am sure the Minister is aware that there is a suspicion in Harland & Wolff and outside that in the minds of some in the management and ownership of the company there is a more beneficial use for the land.
I have spoken to my Friend, the Minister for Regional Development. Will the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment consult and work with Mr Gregory Campbell to ensure that the two Departments prevent the removal of any land from any present leasing arrangements without its being in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland? There is a fear and suspicion that it could be more financially useful to the owner than the core business of shipbuilding at the yard.

Sir Reg Empey: Of course, the Member has been working on the matter for many years as the Member of Parliament for East Belfast, and he knows that, in other capacities, I and other colleagues have been being doing the same. He raises the issue of training and he quite correctly identifies one of the dangers in the current exercise. He may be aware that, through the company development programme, the Department currently has an agreement with Harland & Wolff in which we provide them with financial assistance towards the costs of re-training staff. A budget was available towards the end of last year, an agreement has now been reached and training is taking place. To some extent, that has been overtaken by events.
The chief executive of the Training and Employment Agency is one of the key people in the taskforce. Obviously, some of the ships Harland & Wolff have just completed, and some which are currently being built, are very complicated and highly technical. Significant skills are needed to complete contracts and, therefore, the Member correctly identifies one of the key areas the taskforce must address. The difficulty is that if you are losing more than 50% of your existing workforce, then, by definition, you are bound to have a skills fallout. We saw, in the situation with the Global Marine contract, that large numbers of people from outside had to be brought in, and the management of those people led to some of the difficulties.
I agree with what the Member said and I assure him that one of the key roles of the taskforce will be to ensure that what staff remain are as well trained as possible. The Department will stand ready, through the company development programme, to assist in that regard.
With regard to suspicions over the land, I am as aware as the Member is of the long-held belief that there was another issue around, and it was not simply a matter of shipbuilding. I assure him that I would have no difficulty in working with my Colleague, Gregory Campbell, to ensure that the undertakings we have been given by the company, publicly and privately, are adhered to. The company has undertaken to maintain Harland & Wolff as a shipbuilding and engineering facility. We know it no longer requires part of its land and that that land is being used for property development. I have no difficulty with that; it is the Titanic quarter; it is out in the open; we all know about it, and it is clearly land that is not currently needed. I am not sure what powers I have in the event that attempts are made to move beyond that and to convert the whole area into some kind of property development. Therefore, I am not able to answer the Member specifically on that point. However, if I have the power to prevent a "smash and grab" land deal being done, I will have no hesitation in using it. I would work very closely with the Minister for Regional Development to ensure that does not happen. I will come back to the Member when I have had the opportunity to check my ability to do that.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Minister for his statement. There are a number of points on which I would like more information. He has given us three points on the terms of reference for the task force. Are these the only three points or does the taskforce have any other terms of reference? He has mentioned that the chief executive of the Training and Employment Agency is on the task force. Would it be possible to know who else is on it? Is the taskforce to produce a report within a reasonable period of time, and if so, when is the report due?

Sir Reg Empey: I have identified the key members of the task force. I have to consult with my colleague, Dr Farren, before finalising the members, but a list can be left in the Library for Members. The points are not intended to be restrictive. I have highlighted the main elements, but any other matter will be addressed if necessary.
A change of membership may become necessary, but that does not matter. We are simply trying to help. There are over 600 families in difficulty, and possibly more. The Government will do anything they feel is required.
There has already been communication between Dr Farren’s Department and mine, and this is not the first attempt at setting up a task force. We are setting it up now, because we want to ensure that there is no doubt that we are co-ordinating all our efforts. It may well be that the Department for Regional Development will have an interest, and I will have no difficulty if that is the case.
Work will begin immediately as there is not enough time to sit for weeks and look over these matters. I fully subscribe to Mr Neeson’s view that these are urgent matters, and I assure him that there will be no delay either in the establishment of the task force or in its work.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement and the fact that he is trying to save jobs. Is he aware of the financial crisis affecting a much bigger employer than Harland & Wolff? The community and voluntary sector employs thousands of people from both communities and is currently being suffocated by a lack of resources. If he is going to spend money from the public purse on —

Mr Speaker: Order. Such a question is out of order. Questions to a Minister on a statement must be on the subject of the statement. If the member has a question on the subject of the statement, she should put it.

Mr Peter Robinson: It is not even something that he is responsible for.

Mr Speaker: The Member from a sedentary position adds that it is a matter of putting a question to the Minister who has responsibility for the subject of that question. Sometimes I am generous and allow a Minister to say whether he is responsible. Ministers usually give a response anyway. If the Member wishes to put a question on the statement, she is welcome to do so.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I echo the thanks that Mr Peter Robinson has extended to the Minister for keeping local representatives in east Belfast informed about developments at the shipyard and for his involvement since becoming Minister.
At times, the management has not been very forthcoming with the workers and public representatives. The Minister barely mentions the management in his statement, other than to say that he has been meeting with it. Is he happy with how the management has dealt with the situation in the shipyard? I think particularly of chasing new orders and handling existing orders, which seem to have been crisis prone? Is he aware that the workers first found out about the scale of the redundancies from the radio? Will he be taking this issue up with the management at Harland & Wolff? Many people are grossly upset that the trade unions and the workers themselves were not given prior notice of the management’s statement.
Is the Minister aware of the graffiti on the walls in the Short Strand, no doubt put up by Republicans, gloating about the job losses at the shipyard? Does he agree that such sentiments are a result of the sectarian poison that has been injected into parts of our community by members of IRA/Sinn Fein?
12.00

Sir Reg Empey: I deeply regret that such material has appeared, and I would advise such people that what goes around comes around. If any person is losing his job, if any company is in difficulties, that is a negative thing for the entire economy. It is not simply the local people who work in the company who are affected; the surrounding businesses, as the hon Member knows, are affected, whether they be petrol stations, sweet shops, grocery stores or whatever. It is very short-sighted and deplorable if that is the attitude of some people.
As the Member will know, I appreciate his efforts for the company over a long time. I am regularly in touch with the local management but the senior company is also involved here. This means that there is management engagement at two levels, at the level of the local company and at the level of the principal shareholding company. I have had regular contacts with both and in recent weeks a majority of my contact has been with the senior company and with the owner, MrOlsen, personally. With regard to how things were managed, the Member may know that in August, when I was out of Northern Ireland on a trade mission, I was led to believe that an announcement was imminent and came back from America for that reason. At that moment, however, the shop stewards who were standing by were stood down, and then something suddenly appeared in the press. Notices were given to the Stock Exchange in Oslo, but the workers were not notified and neither was I. I got sight of some of those announcements after they were made in public, so I was not at all times in possession of the information.
However, Harland & Wolff is a private company, and it does its own thing. I agree that the cruellest aspect of all of this is not so much the knowledge that the company has been in difficulty, but that people have had a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, knowing that they might be made redundant. To have that drag on for some considerable time added to the tensions, and then there was the legal dispute over payment. The fact that it had to go to arbitration made it all take much longer than was expected and made the whole thing worse. I am aware of those concerns.
We will have to have an inquest into all of these matters, but the task now is to try to insure the core that remains. The one good thing that has come out of this is that the core still exists; the potential for growth is still there and with the oil price having risen substantially, the offshore market with which Harlands is currently geared up ought to be improving.
An aggressive marketing strategy aimed at that market is the only way forward, and if there is anything this Department can do in that regard we will certainly do it.
I hinted earlier that with regard to Ministry of Defence matters, we may need to make a fresh push. I would certainly appreciate the support of local representatives in that. I understand that the hon Member for East Belfast, Mr P Robinson, has publicly indicated his willingness to engage in that, and that is something that we all could do. That would be positive. Harlands is part of a number of consortia that are bidding for Ministry of Defence work. These are big contracts and they are no longer going to a single yard — they are going to consortia. That is an area where we should have some influence. I hope that we can count on all local representatives to assist in that, and if an opportunity can be created for such a situation then I would be happy to do so.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his statement and for keeping the departmental Committee informed. First, I wish to put my party’s position on record and to express concern about job losses in any sector, particularly when those job losses are major. It is clear that strenuous efforts have been made to keep the shipyard afloat, and that the nub of the problem lies in the lack of current orders for Harland & Wolff. This is due to a number of factors, including global market conditions. It is also clear that hard-nosed business decisions have to be made in respect of the whole issue.
I turn to the creation of this high calibre task force. Given the crisis that faces the textile and bakery industries, the community sector and firms like United Technology Automotive Ltd in Derry, which has paid off over 1,000 workers, will the same level of urgency be given to such matters, and will similar task forces be set up?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member correctly points out that the key issue is the lack of firm orders. If the company does not have business on its books, what the Government do will not affect the outcome.
The task force is not a new concept. At the end of last year, the textile industry went through a particularly difficult patch, particularly in the North Down and Ards areas. I established a task force with the help of Ards Borough Council. The hon Member for Strangford, who is in the Room, will confirm that. It included members of the local authority and IDB and LEDU officials, and was formed because of the number and concentration of redundancies in the textile industry and to see what steps could be taken to help. That task force has been working since, and I am sure that a number of members of Ards Borough Council who are in the Chamber will be prepared to confirm that. The concept is not new.
With regard to the wider issue of textiles, the Department has, after consultation with the industry, appointed Kurt Salmon Associates, not simply to carry out a management consultancy exercise but to work with the industry through workshops and various strategy groups to see if there is a way forward, taking into account what has happened in other European countries. That is another example of action having been taken on the textile sector.
Similarly, I have spoken to the Northern Ireland Bakeries Council and have been keeping that industry under close watch. I have also been engaged in consultations with the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland with particular regard to that industry because, as the Member will appreciate, the difficulty for the bakery industry has been the pressure from the supermarkets to cut prices.
The principle of setting up task forces is well established and is not unique to this particular case. I hope that it is not necessary to appoint any more, but, should the situation arise where benefit can be gained or assistance given, we would have no hesitation in doing so.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Minister for his statement and join with him in his concern for the well-being of those to be made redundant and their families.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, to follow up Mr P Robinson’s question about his power to control any proposed smash-and-grab land deal. Does the Minister have the power to recall any of the grant assistance given to the yard in the past?
Secondly, I should like the Minister to explain why the United Kingdom — and Harland & Wolff — has such a small share of the world shipbuilding industry, particularly in the light of the fact that the Dutch and the French are beating us hands down. Perhaps, after what was said about the textiles sector, we should also employ consultants like Kurt Salmon to look at the future of our shipbuilding industry.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister if he agrees that we cannot and must not close the door on our shipbuilding industry and the livelihoods of the people who work there. Does he agree that the Blair Government would have been better advised to concentrate their efforts on securing contracts for Harland & Wolff rather than wasting public money on something like the Millennium Dome?

Sir Reg Empey: It seems impossible to have any subject on the table at the moment without its relating in some way to the dome, which, if nothing else, is certainly, as someone has said, one of the few things visible when looking at the earth from outer space. However, a range of issues has been raised about the land. I must, however, put on the record that Mr Olsen and his company have made very substantial sums of money available over the last few months to keep the yard open, not the action of people lacking commitment. Without closing my eyes to the risks, I believe the firm intention is still to keep a core business operating on that site. That is certainly the Department’s objective and my own.
With regard to grants recall, I must point out that the IDB assists Harland & Wolff — and, indeed any other shipbuilding industry, were there more than one company — in a unique way. It is not through selective financial assistance, the normal mechanism used by the IDB, but through another called intervention aid grant , designed specifically for shipbuilding. Money is granted to a specific project. The grant goes on the construction of a particular vessel, not on a general sum of money for a company to employ a certain number of people. The grant is totally focused on a particular project. That is governed by the EU Shipbuilding Regulation (EC No 9506/98), in which the sums of money which may be given are specifically set out. There is no question of grant recall. However, bearing in mind that we have been paying grant in arrears by stages, if there is any flaw in the contract, or the company does not deliver what it is supposed to, grant could be withheld. Intervention aid is contract-related, so the IDB has no right to recover grants where the contract is completed. It would only have the right to withhold money if the contract were not implemented.
There is a shipbuilding market of approximately 2,500 vessels per annum. The Koreans are able to snap up perhaps 400 to 500 of those, leaving the rest of the world about 2,000 vessels. There are currently 15 vessels under construction in the entire United Kingdom. I have mentioned the Dutch experience before the Committee. They currently have 246 vessels under construction, but they cover many different types of vessels, such as those used on the Rhine. They would not necessarily be vessels you or I would recognise as such, for the name covers a vast variety.
As regards our competitiveness with the rest of Europe, our costs are approximately 7% higher than the European average. There are also problems with the labour force. If you look at the graph you will see that a large number of people working in shipbuilding are in their late ’40s and ’50s. There are not nearly as many in the lower age bracket.
The Government have established a shipbuilding forum, on which Harland & Wolff is entitled to have representation. This forum is looking at a range of problems. The purpose of the meeting we had with the Deputy Prime Minister in July was to look at the way ahead, consider the progress of that forum and bring forward proposals and ideas to modernise and sustain.
The House needs to be aware that, as things stand, we will not be able to offer any intervention aid grant after 31 December 2000, unless a decision is taken by the European Union, in negotiations to take place in November, to extend that deadline. The unanimous view of the July meeting was that that should happen. After 31 December 2000, if I am correct, we will not be able to pay out any intervention aid grant for shipbuilding. Members need to get their heads around that, because it is a significant development.
We will be lobbying strongly — and I am in regular contact with Stephen Byers — that we are of the view that we should be permitted to continue to offer intervention aid grant. There is a general feeling that there is not a level playing field in the world market. The Koreans are buying to capacity, going for growth and subsidising their production through various means. That is the opinion held throughout the UK shipbuilding industry.
As far as closing the door is concerned, I assure the hon Member that whatever else I maybe guilty of, I am not trying to see the demise of this industry. I am doing everything possible, but we have to understand our limitations. The key issue is for the company to find a client capable of providing the finance to construct vessels and get them to sign a contract. In the absence of a viable contract, there is nothing that anybody in this House can do that will matter, and that has to be borne in mind.

Mr Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for the work he is doing in to try to safeguard these jobs. Despite his good work, we are now facing over 600 lay-offs, with no guarantee for those who are left.
Can the Minister gave us the state of play on the four roll-on/roll-off ferries? What are the chances of getting those contracts, and what help can his Department give? Does the Minister agree that there is a real concern that Harland & Wolff has been unable to gain orders world-wide for either oil drilling rigs or cruise liners? This flies in the face of the real upturn in demand for those, and it begs the question: why is Harland & Wolff management seeking orders for windmills? They are like Don Quixote — chasing windmills instead of building ships. This makes a great many of us concerned.
In the light of the very real concerns that the workers and elected representatives have, does the Minister agree that we need a public inquiry into the management of Harland & Wolff? Many of us are trying to understand what is happening. In his reply to a question from Peter Robinson, the Minister mentioned re-training. Many Harland & Wolff workers live in the Strangford and Ards Borough Council area —

Mr Speaker: Order. This is an opportunity for Members to put questions, not to make expansive speeches.

Mr Jim Shannon: Does the Minister intend to focus the retraining on the people who are losing their jobs rather than on the area of east Belfast, thereby missing many who are losing their jobs?

Sir Reg Empey: I assure the Member that the focus will be on the individual and not on east Belfast. We intend to set up a temporary job centre in the yard, where individuals threatened with redundancy can be advised or counselled on redundancy. The job centre will bring with it the demands from the labour market for skilled workers and a number of companies are currently looking for skilled workers. Therefore, I hope that a significant percentage of those who are made redundant will have an opportunity to get new jobs.
Clearly, this is a different proposition from the one that the hon Member for East Belfast (Mr Peter Robinson) made earlier, when he referred to the remaining workforce. The part of the workforce that leaves will be offered training and retraining — that is a key issue. Every person will be dealt with on a personal basis, and a package will be developed for the individual. It will not only be an area issue. It will focus on the person.
With regard to the oil industry, I agree with the Member. There is great potential at the moment. I am encouraged by Mr Olsen’s announcement that a second rig will soon arrive in the yard for assessment. That could produce some work. One rig is already being surveyed and examined. We await the outcome of the survey to find out what further work will need to be done. At the moment, the contract is to survey the rig and to assess its condition. Mr Olsen recently purchased a second rig, which will undergo a similar exercise. Work may be generated when those two vessels and rigs arrive.
The question of windmills does sound a bit off beam, but it is not necessarily a bad idea. Mr Olsen’s business is energy — his company is called Fred Olsen Energy — and it can take different forms, such as oil, gas or wind. He foresees the development of large offshore wind farms, which will fulfil future energy needs.
Several sites have been identified in the British Isles. These windmills are substantial structures made mostly of steel and the process for constructing offshore windmills is complicated and technical. A licence has been granted for a test area to be developed about two miles off the west coast of the Republic. If the initial project is successful, another licence will emerge.
There have been similar proposals for other offshore sites in the Irish Sea. These are very substantial structures and there could be a long-term future in them. The recent oil crisis has resulted in President Clinton releasing emergency oil stocks in the past few days. That situation has not occurred for many years.
The training will be focused on individuals, and I agree with the hon Member that there ought to be potential for developing the offshore industry.
This a private company, so inquiries into its operations are limited. What can be enquired into — through the Enterprise Trade and Investment Committee — are matters which relate to the use of public funds in the area of development. However, ultimately it is a private company. As I indicated, intervention aid grant is paid to a specific project and not to the company in general.

Mr Speaker: I will take two more questions on the statement.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister for attempting to save jobs in the yard and elsewhere. I commend his visit to America, with my colleague Pat Doherty, to investigate further opportunities for employment. I too declare an interest. It is, perhaps not as beneficially weighty as Peter Robinson’s, but my great-great-grandfather was building ships on the east side of Belfast Lough before Harland & Wolff bought them out. That is my interest in the shipyard.
May I mention Mr Sammy Wilson’s reference to the graffiti in the Short Strand area of East Belfast? That community has suffered from unemployment over the years and also from what they perceive as discrimination in unemployment. When the shipyard was the goose that laid the golden egg, they never really shared in that golden egg. However, I would be disappointed to learn — and I shall check it out — that that community, which has suffered so much, is gloating over anyone else’s losing their jobs.
If the Minister is working with Mr Sean Farren on training and on other issues relating to, we hope, the future development of the shipyard, will he ensure that there are equal employment opportunities in the shipyard? As a trade unionist, I share Mr Peter Robinson’s and Mr Sammy Wilson’s concerns over the intentions of Harland & Wolff’s owners and their equivocation about the future of the yard. There is a perception abroad in the general community that they are not serious about ensuring that there is a viable industry within the confines of Harland & Wolff. Perhaps they see greater financial reward from going in other directions.

Sir Reg Empey: I presume that the Member is referring to the Workman, Clark and Co shipyard which existed in the city some years ago.
With regard to the Short Strand, I said in response to Mr Sammy Wilson’s question that I deplore the graffiti in that area. It is an immature and short-sighted attitude to adopt, because, to use an awful pun, rising tide will lift all boats. It is in everybody’s interest to ensure that as many jobs as possible are protected.
On the issue of equal opportunities, the Member will be aware that, along with every other company in Northern Ireland, Harland & Wolff has to comply with the legislation. In the past few years, it has been making significant efforts. Some of the Members’ party Colleagues have, at the invitation of the shipyard, visited it in their capacity as Belfast City Councillors on more than one occasion to see the facilities for themselves. The company has taken an interest in them and explained what was going on. Whenever opportunities were created, I understand, Harland & Wolff was represented on road shows that went to schools in west Belfast. It held fairs and took part in public events in the likes of the Waterfront Hall in order to be available to any labour force.
However, the reality is that there is a contracting workforce, and, therefore, the opportunity for such people to gain employment in the company will come only if it is successful. That is the direction in which we should be going.
As for the intentions of the owners, I said earlier that if I were interested purely in a land deal, I would not do what Mr Olsen is doing. I would not do what Mr Olsten did throughout the summer when he put large amounts of his own company’s money into the shipyard. I am talking about large amounts — not nickels and dimes. While there will inevitably be a property dimension to all of this, and he and the company made that clear in their statement, they also made it clear that they were committed to maintaining a core shipbuilding and engineering facility on that site.
I take their word at face value, and if I and other Members are being misled, I will take a dim view of that.
With regard to the matter that the hon Member for East Belfast (Mr Peter Robinson) raised when he referred to the Minister for Regional Development, we have in this Assembly, in our own hands, the ability to more or less resolve this issue, because when the issue of the privatisation of the port is dealt with, the issue of the land and who holds the leases will be also. The Assembly has the power to decide what happens. There is normally a user clause that specifies what you are allowed to do with the land that you lease. This land clearly is for shipbuilding and engineering. If you wish to change to some other activity, that requires you to get the permission of the landlord, and large sums of money normally are extracted if user clauses are changed.
When a recent lease was altered to allow the Titanic Quarter to develop, the Harbour Commissioners came to an arrangement with the company to share the profits from that. If we deal with the land issues surrounding the port, the House has the power to deal with that and settle it.
I am working on the assumption that I am being told the truth and that the company means what it is saying in its statements. I am proceeding on that basis. I would be greatly distressed to learn that something else was the case.

Mr Tom Benson: The question that I wished to ask has already been dealt with.

Mr Speaker: The Member is to be commended. Not every Member admits that his question has been answered; most ask the question again.

New Deal Programme

Dr Esmond Birnie: That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to review the New Deal programme to tailor it to the needs of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland.
The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee is grateful for the opportunity to debate this matter. The Committee was agreed that the subject of the New Deal was of sufficient concern to be brought to the House at the earliest opportunity.
I will begin by laying out some broad principles. There are some good developments in the Northern Ireland labour market, notwithstanding the subject of the previous ministerial statement. Members will know from the recent announcement that the unemployed claimant count is down and has been declining for some time. Unemployment rates are at historically low levels — average rates are lower than the European Union average. Six thousand persons came off the claimant count, off benefits and into work in 1998-99.
As Chairman of the Committee, I recognise that commendable efforts have been made by those in the administration of the New Deal scheme and by those who implement it on the ground. Some of them deserve special commendation for efforts above and beyond the call of duty in the attempt to bring people out of a benefits culture and into the world of work.
Nevertheless, in spite of all those bouquets, there are still deficiencies, and these matter because there is a tragically large pocket of long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland. According to some indicators we may be moving back towards full employment, at least as defined in the technical sense, where the supply of those readily available for work roughly equates to the types of labour that are in demand.
The purpose of the Committee motion is to be constructively critical. There are feasible changes to the New Deal scheme that would yield positive results. Many of those changes would not incur large costs. A recurrent theme throughout the debate will be the point that the New Deal scheme was designed in London and may not transfer well to the different conditions that exist in the local labour market. For example, in Northern Ireland, as a percentage of the total labour force, we have more older long-term unemployed, and some of our long-term unemployed have been out of work for a considerable numbers of years.
The Committee supports the Minister in efforts to change the New Deal at UK level. It recognises that there are limits on the autonomy and freedom of action of the Stormont Executive because it is a UK-wide scheme. We also recognise that the funding for New Deal is ring-fenced money provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so we do not have the option, even if we wished to take it, to move money to other parts of the Northern Ireland block.
The Committee has reflected on the evidence presented by five New Deal providers and consortia on 7 September 2000. It has also considered the many evaluative studies of New Deal. Most of those relate to Great Britain but some relate to Northern Ireland. There are many interesting lessons.
New Deal has some strengths. Its aim is commendable — to take people off welfare and put them into work. In the long run, its success will have to be judged alongside other Labour flagship policies, such as the minimum wage and the working family tax credit. Commentators who praise the New Deal often stress the role of the personal advisers who are supposed to work alongside the long-term unemployed to direct them appropriately through the various options contained in the scheme. That is good practice if it works well. However, there are situations where some of the personal advisers have very heavy caseloads, in some cases between 120 and 130 individuals. That issue needs to be looked at.
Unfortunately, many weaknesses have become apparent at both the UK and Northern Ireland levels. There is evidence that New Deal participants are often moving out of the scheme, and that if they do receive a job it is only of short-term duration. In England the phenomenon of the revolving door has been noted — individuals leave the scheme, return to unemployment and after the due period come back on to New Deal. They move round and round without progressing permanently into the labour market.
We need a better system of tracking what becomes of those who graduate from New Deal. Such tracking is required both in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. FrankField MP noted the latter point in a letter to ‘The Times’ on 14 July 2000.
We would like to know more about the extent of so-called dead weight in the Northern Ireland scheme. These are cases where New Deal participants would have found employment, even if the scheme did not exist. We note with concern estimates that have been made for various New Deal options in Great Britain which suggest dead weight figures of between 60% and 80%. That means that most people coming through the scheme would have found work anyway, indicating a waste of public money.
It is clear that there are huge benefits to the individual and to society from improvements in training. In that regard, the Committee is concerned about perceived inflexibility in the regulations of the New Deal scheme. It may be more perception than reality. If that is the case, there is a need for the Training and Employment Agency to improve the information provided to participants and the consortia. On the one hand, the New Deal may not be facilitating the progression of a high-flyer who wants to take qualifications beyond NVQ2 or NVQ3 level. However, on the other hand, in many cases there has been a failure to recognise and tackle the absences of the most basic and vital skills — literacy and numeracy. That point was well made by the Education and Training Inspectorate’s report on New Deal options in south and east Belfast.
As ever in government, it is important to lead by example. How many New Dealers, we wonder, are currently employed by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. In Great Britain the figure is about 1.2%, with a target of 2%. What is the record in Northern Ireland?
The Committee is pleased that the Minister has provided suggestions to the relevant Minister at Westminster, Tessa Jowell, on how the overall New Deal scheme might be altered. We particularly commend a longer so-called intensive activity period — 26 weeks instead of 13 — in the New Deal 25-plus. This matters because Northern Ireland’s long-term unemployed are often from the older labour force.
We also commend the application of the £750 training grant to the 25-plus group. There should be a reduction in the eligibility criteria for 25-plus from 18 months of unemployment to 12. Alongside that, there should be stronger sanctions with respect to withdrawal of benefits at 25 weeks.
Reform of the New Deal as a UK-wide policy could be the subject of meetings of a joint ministerial committee bringing our local Minister together with his counterparts in Edinburgh, Cardiff and London.
I repeat that the Committee welcomes this opportunity to debate what is an important subject for many people. Long-term unemployment is a human tragedy because of the waste it involves. A former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, once said that for the person or individual who is unemployed, the unemployment rate is always 100%. Our priority today is neither to praise New Deal nor necessarily to bury it; it is to suggest sensible reforms to make it work more effectively in Northern Ireland’s labour market circumstances.

Mr Speaker: I have a list of Members who want to speak. Taking that into account, and to give an opportunity for the Minister to respond and for Dr Birnie to wind up, and to allow a short break between the end of the debate and Question Time at 2.30, I will restrict all Members, except the Minister and Dr Birnie, to five minutes.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: The performance of the New Deal thus far can be measured in a number of ways. We could look at the statistics; there are ample statistics in the KPMG report. There has been plenty of press coverage, and we could make our judgements according to that. I want to base my comments on the experiences of the participants. Those are the people at the coalface. There are probably few of us in the Chamber who know anything about the indignity of long-term unemployment and the despair of the continual unsuccessful search for a job.
From the evidence presented to the Committee, it is all too clear, according to the providers, that in order to be relevant to the long-term unemployment situation, New Deal requires to be revamped or, in the words of the motion,
"tailor[ed] to the needs of the long term unemployed in Northern Ireland."
That conclusion is derived from a series of experiences across Northern Ireland of those who operate at the coalface. The complexity of the administration is highlighted in the KPMG report. That is the view of personal advisers, but the providers confirmed it in their evidence:
"There was too much paperwork and administration in some cases with a perceived lack of administrative support, and … much of the paperwork was unnecessarily duplicated."
Responding to a question on the bureaucratic structure of New Deal, which involves the Training and Employment Agency, the Social Security Agency, consortia, lead partners, members, associate members, providers, personal advisors and participants, one witness felt that the programme could be streamlined to provide a better service. The referral system, or entry requirement, for the New Deal programme requires modification to enable it to be more effective in Northern Ireland. In the 25-plus category, the eligibility threshold should be reduced from 18 months to no more than 12 months, and the intensive activity period increased from 13 weeks to at least 26 weeks. There are also difficulties with the voluntary sector and environmental options. There is no real split between them. Participants are doing the same work in both cases.
Although New Deal was not introduced as a replacement for the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme, it was nevertheless made clear by the Government that the training elements of ACE could be incorporated into New Deal. Indeed, this was one of the selling points when the ACE schemes were vigorously lobbying for retention. However, despite the demand in Northern Ireland for environmental work and other social support work involving tradesmen’s skills and care programme disciplines, there is insufficient flexibility in the New Deal programme to facilitate such training. In addition, the lack of referrals to the voluntary and environmental options is leaving providers in the unenviable position of having to shut up shop because the enterprise is no longer viable.
Not only is this detrimental to the voluntary organisation, but it causes yet another gap in the social development of the community. It is therefore imperative that New Deal be tailored in such a way that is flexible enough to provide training opportunities in all those environmental skills, household skills and a whole range of social activities with a measurable economic output.

Mr John Dallat: One important fact to emerge from this report is the degree of illiteracy among young people. If the report is to serve a useful function, we have to establish why so many young people are slipping through the education system and leaving school with serious learning difficulties which may haunt them for the rest of their lives. Surely, in the developed world, it is totally unacceptable that it is left to training organisations to pick up the pieces of so many who go through school only to leave with undetected problems such as dyslexia and other learning disorders.
All of those problems can be remedied if the skills and resources are available at school level, but quite clearly they are not available. Members will agree that the most critical evidence from the inquiry was the startling revelation that so many young people cannot read or write. They spend 12 years of their lives going through the education system while coping with serious literacy and numeracy problems. Even when they leave school there are no records of these problems available to the Training and Employment Agency, so that they can be helped. That was backed up by evidence given by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce to an Assembly Committee last week.
Is it right that a society that prides itself in standards of excellence, which many of our centres of learning are renowned for, should have this problem? Where do these unfortunate young people figure in those wonderful league tables that occupy so much of our newsprint? They are nowhere. That must change. Such people cannot enjoy the fundamental right of being able to read and write. We need to know why this state of affairs exists, and we need to know what can be done about it.
We know from research that overcrowding in classrooms is a fundamental cause of low levels of attainment and that, when classes are smaller, children progress more rapidly. Why do we train teachers to the highest levels in our universities and training colleges, only to discover that they cannot obtain jobs in the profession that they were trained for? Surely, it is reasonable to ask why we are getting such disturbing evidence about the lack of basic skills in reading and writing when — and I know this from personal experience — many of our young and talented teachers are unable to find jobs in schools and are on the dole.
For many years, our education system, at all levels, has been treated appallingly by successive Government. Our teachers have been crucified by a system that seldom appreciated their work and always failed miserably to provide the necessary resources.
It is to be hoped that, with the publication of this report, the past will really be the past and we can wipe the slate clean and make a new beginning where every child will be treated as an individual. Let us make it a fundamental right of every child that his or her special needs can be met. Let us ensure that factories do not have to take on the job of teaching the basic skills of reading and writing after young people have left school.
The present training programme, as DrBirnie said, has many defects, but many of the recommendations in this report are worthy of consideration. Those employed on the programme are grossly overworked and do not have the resources to do the job properly. We were told that in the Committee time and time again. They are most certainly not equipped to do the job of specialists trying to find out why individuals are finding it so difficult to get permanent jobs, when such people are holding a personal secret — the secret of being illiterate. In a world of technological change, which increasingly demands that people be able to demonstrate the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, there is no place for serious flaws in the education system.
For whatever reason, thousands of our young people are released into the world with one of the heaviest burdens anyone can be asked to bear. Something must be done about it. If we do nothing, it matters little how good the training is. The trainees will simply go back to the unemployment register to begin the whole fruitless process of training again and again, without resolving the critical issue of the fundamental right to be literate and avail oneself of lifelong learning — one of the high ideals set by the Assembly.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The motion calls for a review of the New Deal programme to tailor it to the needs of the long-term unemployed. However, one wonders if New Deal can be tailored to anything, as the little evidence available from its inception suggests that the garment was fatally flawed at the design and cut stage. We could argue that New Deal is yet another import from across the water that has not worked here.
When the British Government first introduced New Deal, it was seen by the community as another scheme to take people off the dole register. The criticism then was that New Deal was not really new but the Welfare to Work scheme talked up, and that the finer details had not been worked out. That criticism still stands.
The second criticism was that the British Labour Party, no doubt expounding social democratic values, had fallen into the old Tory trap of believing that there were two types of people, namely those who wanted to work and those who did not. It is this rationale which still underpins New Deal. It is clear that the New Deal programme has not addressed the needs of the long-term unemployed in the north of Ireland.
Indeed, as the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has heard from the limited evidence given so far, the New Deal programme makes dismal reading. The picture presented shows the long-term employed doing menial work, receiving little support and being involved in a situation of forced labour. As one witness to the Committee said, if someone is forced into a programme, they will not go. Members of the consortia are seen as enforcers and, because of that, New Deal is becoming a revolving-door scheme with participants completing their options, going straight back to unemployment benefit and re-entering some months later.
The problem for us, and the unemployed, is that we have no way of measuring the extent of this dismal picture of New Deal. We have no up-to-date data on how well New Deal is performing. What little evidence we have suggests there is an east/west split in opportunity for the long-term unemployed in training and in jobs.
Apart from the east/west difficulty, New Deal is not a good deal for women, but that is not new either.
The official figures available, issued in January this year, referred to the period up to the end of October. That data gave only Job Centre figures for New Deal without telling us how many unemployed, either short or long-term, were in each area, how many access work through New Deal, what type of work it is, and so on. That situation is compounded by the failure of the Department to produce statistics due in July and August of this year which may have helped to determine whether New Deal was a viable scheme for the long- term unemployed, even if it were reviewed. Indeed what is available from a plethora of groups from economic experts, to lead partners and consortia, suggests that the whole New Deal scheme is not working. The Minister and the Training and Employment Agency will argue that while there are problems — indeed, MrFarren has sent suggestions to the British Government on proposed changes — New Deal is working and should not be written off. They will say that the group known as the long-term unemployed has reduced substantially over the last two years so things are happening, people are getting jobs and moving off the register.They do not deny that the element of compulsion for the 18-to 24-year-olds has caused problems from the start. But, they state, it is British Government policy and it does not allow for much flexibility, even though the unemployment situation here is different and more acute than it is in England.
What is worrying, however, is that the Training and Employment Agency states
"There are people who are more job-ready and there are others who are more difficult to place because of related problems".
They include in that low achievers and people who have problems associated with drug and alcohol abuse. New Deal has almost abandoned these people. However, they do not tell us that, in most instances, the real difficulty for the long-term unemployed, whether we review New Deal or not, is that there is no work for that group to go back to. According to KPMG Management Consultants, the general impression of the over-25 group living west of the Bann was that job placements were not available.
There is also a gender split. The eligibility criteria excludes women who are not on the register but who may want to return to work. This is further exacerbated by the New Deal programme for lone parents which, rather than provide opportunities for education and training places the emphasis —

Mr Speaker: I must ask the Member to bring her remarks to a close.

Ms Mary Nelis: It places the emphasis on directing lone parents into jobs which are often low paid and insecure. I do not believe that imposing benefit sanctions on the over 25s will produce a better deal for the long-term unemployed. I do not believe —

Mr Speaker: Order. I must ask the Member to finish. She is well over time.

Mr Sean Neeson: Those with fond memories of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue will remember that one of the major issues tackled was the transition from ACE to New Deal. In fact, the Chairman of the Committee on Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment was an adviser to the economic committee of the forum on that and other issues. I hate to be one of those people who says "I told you so", but when we were dealing with the introduction of New Deal we said that one of the major problems was that New Deal did not relate specifically to Northern Ireland.
That is why New Deal is such a failure. I firmly believe that the destruction of the ACE schemes took away a great deal of very worthwhile community service and community care. One of the strengths of the ACE scheme was that it went straight into the community and helped the most vulnerable people.
The introduction of New Deal has seriously weakened a number of local enterprise agencies in Northern Ireland, because a major element in many of them was developing training within ACE itself. New Deal, as it has been implemented in Northern Ireland, does not really recognise community needs. However, there is one big difference between the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Forum on issues such as New Deal: the Assembly has the powers to deal effectively with such issues.
Interestingly, one of the main issues emerging in the work being carried out by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee on ‘Strategy 2010’ is the need to develop skills relating to the needs of the new industries coming into Northern Ireland. With that in mind, I see another weakness in New Deal, because it will be necessary to get people into situations where they can take advantage of the training required for those new industries.
I welcome the fact that the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment is working very closely with Sir Reg Empey in Enterprise, Trade and Investment. There is a strong link between skills development and the creation of employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. Last Monday’s announcement concerning New Deal 50-plus was very welcome. While New Deal has concentrated largely on the 18-25 age group, there are major opportunities for people who feel that once they have reached the age of 50 their chances of getting new employment are remote. I believe opportunities are being provided. I welcome the fact that there will be a review of the operation of New Deal. It is necessary to look at the effectiveness of the project as it is presently operating. It is crucial that there is a monitoring process to find out what happens to people after experiencing six months of New Deal. It is important to gauge just how much New Deal is targeted towards social inclusion and for that reason I ask the Assembly to review the use of the Robson Index for establishing deprivation in Northern Ireland. Many areas of Northern Ireland are suffering because of that.

Prof Monica McWilliams: This debate is timely, as we need to reflect on the fact that a huge sum of money is being allocated to this programme. It is probably more than some of the Departments have to allocate — £140 million. We will not have the opportunity too often to have such a large amount of money allocated to the long-term unemployed.
There are some things to be commended in the programme. I have heard the providers who are dealing with the disabled and lone parents commending the changes that it has made in terms of the employability of these categories of people. However, I agree with the Chairman of the Committee, who said that it catered for the circumstances of the long-term unemployed in England. We know from all of the research on unemployment in Northern Ireland that the case is different here.
I am concerned that 30,000 of the 90,000 places allocated to the programme have been given to Northern Ireland. We will have a great many problems changing the current rules in order to make it a more flexible programme to enable us to meet the needs of those 30,000 people.
I am very concerned about the lack of data currently available. To know if this programme is working, we need the statistics which will tell us about the performance outcomes. What I have got to date is extremely limited. The programme has been running long enough, and if Great Britain is able to produce this data, then Northern Ireland must not lag behind.
Secondly, I am concerned about the providers and trainers. Many of these people gave evidence to our Committee, and over and over again they advised us that they were being tied up in doing manual administrative tasks. The computer system which would have enabled them to do their job much better and provide the Committee with much better information was not available. Those are huge criticisms which I have to direct at the programme.
We need to clarify the role of the personal advisers; they are overworked and suffering from stress. We are asking them to do far too many things. Anyone who has been a personal adviser to an unemployed person knows that you have to develop a relationship with that person. We are dealing with a human being, not a number on a page. To give a personal adviser 120 people to deal with is outrageous. It is little wonder that people do not get the advice and support they came for. That is not a criticism of the personal adviser; it is directed against the resources. We know that a great deal of money has been allocated to this programme which gave 120 people to one adviser. We need also to get clarification of the role of the personal adviser and the providers. Whose job is it to try to place this person?
I am concerned about the information I have received on targeting social need. From the data provided it seems to be creating even greater differentials between areas with the highest social need and those with the least. The most recent data suggests that that changes somewhat, but we need to know why that is the case. Here is a programme targeted at social disadvantage, which is about job placement, not job creation. ACE was abolished due to the fact that it did not have a sufficient element of job creation, and yet we are all aware of the enormous benefits of the skills and personal development unemployed people gained from that programme. Yet ACE was abolished to make way for this scheme. This is continuing to create a disadvantage between areas that have job placements and those that do not.
I am therefore going to be critical of the suggestion that we should have benefit sanctions for the over-25s — simply extending the 18- to 24-year-old group. The programme is also meant to benefit those in the west, but what happens there? People have to move out of the area to get job placements, and if they stay, we are going to sanction their benefits. These people have families and children.
I am also going to be critical of the fact that 88% of those on the New Deal for the over-25s are men. Are married women not considered to be eligible? There is more concern about getting people off the register than helping those who are unemployed. We know that women are discouraged from registering and are therefore not eligible. Finally, the public sector ought to be looking at job placements. The programme needs to be more flexible and we need to get back to our strategic vision of what we would like to do in relation to the long-term unemployed.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the New Deal scheme and highlight the need for some improvements. First, I would like to highlight that NewDeal is a UK-wide scheme, whether we like it or not. It is ring-fenced national money coming into Northern Ireland and Members should bear that in mind when commenting on it because there are restrictions on what can and cannot be done to improve it.
There is an obvious need to improve New Deal, to tailor it as much as we can, nationally, and locally if possible, to meet the needs of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. Some have belittled the NewDeal scheme. I would simply ask those people what are they proposing as an alternative to it and where the money for that alternative would come from. From what budget in the Northern Ireland block grant would they take that money? You have to work with a scheme and try to improve it.
NewDeal has its faults, but it is providing £63million of additional money this year for training and assisting the long-term unemployed, encouraging them to take up training courses and work placement. There is clearly a social responsibility to assist the long-term unemployed get additional further education and employment opportunities. In that, I welcome the NewDeal scheme.
I note that the KPMG research paper said that personal advisers are handling a far too heavy workload, which does not allow them to sufficiently interact with the long-term unemployed. I would like to highlight a situation in my own constituency where, initially, NewDeal in the Carrickfergus area was provided with totally inadequate office space. I appreciate that that has now been put right. Will the Minister advise whether that situation pertains to other areas? It is scandalous that there was not sufficient space for NewDeal advisers to locate in the building. In fact, the area was operating under its quota. Is that happening in any other parts of Northern Ireland?
On a positive note, the new facilities provided are much more professional. People are being treated with much more dignity. The atmosphere strikes me as being more like a recruitment agency than a cross-examination chamber. I hope it will assist people to find suitable training courses and employment.
What happened in Carrickfergus has actually been mimicked in Dungannon and Lisburn where the Training and Employment Agency and the Social Security Agency pilot schemes have been successful. They have worked together, pooling their information for the benefit of the long-term unemployed and assisting them into the world of work. That is being introduced in the Carrickfergus area where both agencies are working closely together. Are there further plans to copy this scheme? It is actually known on the mainland as the One scheme and it introduces a single system, co-ordinating benefits and training in employment assistance. Is the Minister planning to introduce the scheme in other parts of Northern Ireland? In particular, is he proposing to introduce it into areas of long-term unemployment in Belfast and Londonderry where it would appear that it would have potential given the success indicated in Lisburn and Dungannon?
Turning to improving the NewDeal scheme, I agree with some Members that the 13-week placement period is inadequate, and should be extended. I am also concerned that only 20% of NewDeal people are moving into long-term employment having gone through the scheme. We need clear information as to what is happening to everybody else. Why are more people not successful in gaining long-term employment?
The 18-month qualifying period for the long-term unemployed is too long a time to spend out of the world of work. There are also concerns about the low levels of attainment and the lack of skill acquisition. I agree with many others who claim that New Deal is simply picking up where the education system has failed. Approximately 10% of young people leave school without qualifications and that does not help them to find jobs or take advantage of other opportunities that exist.

Mr Joe Byrne: We should remind ourselves that we are asking for the programme to be adjusted to fit the special circumstances here in Northern Ireland. It is important to examine what New Deal means. It must represent a new chance, a new beginning for the long-term unemployed. There are two types of participant; one being those who left school with virtually no qualifications and very low self-esteem. Such a training scheme must give them a new opportunity—something that is meaningful and real. The requirement for participants to be unemployed for 18 months is no good. 18 months is too long a time. It merely adds to the sense of despair felt by applicants for training schemes. I hope this will be examined in the review being carried out by the Minister.
The majority of those who have been unemployed for many years feel almost worthless to society. They feel let down by society. They need a new beginning that is meaningful and offers them a real training opportunity. I therefore concur with Monica McWilliams and others who have said that the lack of real information is a big handicap to us. Not many participants in the training scheme are gaining real qualifications. I ask the Training and Employment Agency to update its systems and make sure that there is better tracking.
The consortium, the local training partnership, which is supposed to co-ordinate training opportunities at district council level, must be examined. There may be too many providers, especially in the voluntary and community sector. Participants in a training scheme need to know that they are going to get something real and meaningful out of it. They need to be doing something that is purposeful and will enable them to get a real job in the future.
It is disturbing that the New Deal scheme is not working out as well as it should do in counties Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh, areas of high unemployment. This is largely because there are far fewer training opportunities in "on-the-job" schemes, and this must be examined. If there are not enough placement opportunities with employers, the Training and Employment Agency needs to examine ways of providing meaningful places for training.
The primary objective of the scheme should be to provide a pathway into employment. The "revolving door syndrome" is creating a sense of unease among people who have been on a scheme from which they feel they have gained nothing remarkable.
The east - west disparity is a concern to people in Omagh and Strabane. New Targeting Social Needs objectives are a major challenge for everyone, and it is to be hoped that these objectives can be applied in the review of New Deal to make it a meaningful training exercise for the future. The New Deal has been of some success, but we are charged with making sure that those who have not benefited from mainstream education or training, can derive something meaningful from it.
I agree that if we are going to work successfully with people who have been unemployed for many years, we need personal advisers who can devote more time to helping those people into a training option and a job.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: The protection of the rights of the unemployed to obtain work and regain dignity and financial security is highly relevant at present — it is timely for the Assembly to be debating this motion on New Deal. In spite of the volumes of public relations material produced under direct rule to accentuate the success of New Deal options in meeting the needs of the unemployed, the scheme has fallen short of many of its claims. It has failed singularly to dismantle the barrier of the long-term unemployed. In reality, the intensive activity period has reinforced the habit of many of its participants to return, after the obligatory 13-weeks attendance, to the obscurity of their unemployed status until they are contacted for further referral. Having said that, line managers in the Training and Employment Agency would be the first to concede — off the record — that New Deal has greatly reduced the numbers obtaining benefit illegally while working. If the New Deal had had this as its main objective, it could be heralded a success. A careful scrutiny of the failure to attend of participants referred for interview by the Training and Employment Agency to the consortia-led partners is evidence of this.
There are aspects of the New Deal that represent a good beginning in the Province. The variety of options represents a platter of opportunities for participants. However, because most of the options fail to offer any financial incentive to the participants, they have been given a cold reception. It is only since the Social Security Agency introduced the withdrawal of benefits that many participants have now been able to overcome their reluctance to attend and participate in options. The environmental, intensive activity period (IAP) and employers’ options are exceptions to this.
Two observations must be made at this point. First, many of the options shadow the opportunities offered on job skills programmes, except that the financial rewards for job skills candidates are absent from New Deal. Secondly, the New Deal age categories seem to have replaced the former ‘adult’ category of the Jobskills Scheme. This needs some review. New Deal can learn a lot from the structure of the Jobskills programme in the sense that modern apprenticeship frameworks are pro-active in realising employment opportunities. Sadly, there is no structure whereby New Deal participants who have completed their NVQ Level II can go on to the Jobskills modern apprenticeship scheme. If this were possible, further training to level III, with employment, would become a reality and lead to full employment.
Currently, level II New Deal participants are unable to progress to a modern apprenticeship programme on entering full-time employment. The modern apprenticeship scheme would make employment more attractive to participants and employers. I urge the Minister to review the arrangements to make the employment option more popular to employers. This would involve lengthening the period of employer support and tightening the lines of communication between the Training and Employment Agency — the training provider — and the employers. The concept of partnership needs to be articulated more thoughtfully, in terms of structure and incentive.
I also call on the Minister to review the Training and Employment Agency’s management of New Deal. From the time of its introduction, New Deal officers were relocated from Social Security Agency offices, and many had little training or careers advice until after they had begun advising on New Deal. The resultant high levels of stress and sick leave among Training and Employment Agency personal advisers did little to promote the reputation or the effective running of the New Deal options. I support the call for a review of the New Deal programme and its options.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion, and I want to give a trade union perspective. Although they have broadly welcomed the deal, the trade unions have a number of concerns, mainly in relation to the first option. What kind of job placements will there be under the employer option? Will there be the possibility of job substitution? Will those in New Deal be entitled to trade union membership and the same terms and conditions that apply to other workers? Will they be subject to the same health and safety regulations and equality of opportunity that apply to other workers?
These problems, a Cheann Comhairle, are endemic in the short-term employment nature of the New Deal. However, if New Deal is to make an impact on changing the situation on the ground, it has to take into account local characteristics — that goes back to what other Members have said about taking into account the existing situation in the North of Ireland. The programme must fit in with existing local mechanisms of regeneration. It has been designed very much as a national programme and it fails to acknowledge the local opportunities or civil society in the North of Ireland.
As regards the programme’s delivery mechanisms, the question must be asked: are the consortia separate from the local area and, if so, will they have an impact? Questions also arise in relation to those over 25, as already mentioned, who are considered to be long-term unemployed. This group has been regarded as being a residual issue in the Welfare-To-Work programme. New Deal is not yet structured enough for those over 25 years old, however, it is hoped that continuing discussions will change the focus. If not, the whole programme, a Cheann Comhairle, will be discredited.
The test of the value of New Deal will surely come in the longer term. How will the Government ensure that the private sector is able to relate specifically to local areas? How will we create a dynamic between employers and local partnerships? The opportunity is there for the private sector to play an energising role, and New Deal could be used as a beginning, a first step, to develop these relationships.
When considering the issues of unemployment and poverty, there is always a fundamental assumption that people are the problem. If New Deal is to make a significant impact on the economic and social waste of unemployment, the following questions and points must be addressed: how do we ensure that New Deal is targeted effectively at the most disadvantaged groups? How do we ensure that the people who are the most difficult to reach are not sidelined in favour of the most accessible groups? If New Deal does not take into account all of the local characteristics, it will fail abysmally; if it fails to link up with local partnerships and mechanisms, again it will fail, because it will not have been integrated into the community it is supposed to serve.
I will finish, a Cheann Comhairle, with this quote:
"The unemployed have both the willingness and the right to work — they should not be exploited for either political or financial gain. The Government are asking the unemployed to make a giant leap of faith into the New Deal, but after decades of mistrust, we are demanding a safety net be erected first. The fact that benefit sanctions have been intensified to those failing to take up one of the four options would certainly indicate the Government’s intentions to implement New Deal at all costs. This compulsion, or work for benefit, is not then Welfare to Work but Welfare to Workfare!"

Mr William Hay: Although supporting the motion, the Committee has had length deliberations on the whole issue of New Deal. It has been critical of it but also constructive in its attitude, and we must congratulate the Minister who knows the issues that surround it. It is more difficult for him than for others, because New Deal is a national programme, and the policy has been that it is limited in its flexibility at a regional level. That causes problems for the Minister.
As I said in my earlier remarks, we must be critical of, but also constructive about, the New Deal. There is certainly still confusion among participants in the programme. We find it difficult to get hold of statistics. For example, does the huge cost of New Deal represent value for money? Secondly, how many young people does it return to the dole queue? How many young people who do not meet employers’ needs fall back into benefits dependency after finishing the programme? These are all vital questions which must be answered if we are to set about trying to improve New Deal.
We all remember the old Action for Community Employment (ACE) scheme, which was reasonably successful in the training and employment of young people. The ACE scheme also showed people, such as senior citizens and those not so well off, that they were getting something on the ground, and it could be seen to be so doing. When that finished, it was a devastating blow for many people. Unfortunately, we now have the New Deal, which we must all try to turn to our advantage.
There are many problems in the programme. Gateway and its follow-through do not explain what New Deal is all about, and there are high caseloads in personal assistance. Another issue, brought up by the people to whom we spoke, was the high level of paperwork and its duplication by employers or whomever was involved in the scheme. Many employers were put off by New Deal’s requirement that they pay for or provide a day’s training away from work, and they would have preferred people over 25, whom they did not have to release.
As a Committee, we should try to identify where the major problems are, how we solve them in the long term, and how we can tailor the New Deal to meet the needs of young people and the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. It is for all of us on the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee to work with the Minister and see how we can help him. We must still be critical of the programme, but, as the Committee Chairman said, we should also be constructive. We are not critical of the Minister, for we say to him, "We may be at one with you on this issue." If we can provide back-up to him in trying to change certain aspects in the programme, we should do so.

Dr Sean Farren: I am very pleased to have such an early opportunity in the new session to debate issues relating to the New Deal. When the Chairman of the Committee, Dr Birnie, recently wrote to me saying how anxious he was for this debate to take place, I was very pleased. I encouraged its scheduling for an early date, for we are at a critical stage in reviewing progress of the New Deal. Indeed, as the Committee Chairman said in his opening remarks, the Department and I have already passed on to London our recommendations on how the New Deal programme should be modified.
Today’s debate is a welcome contribution to that process. As the Chairman indicated in his opening remarks, this process might well form part of an agenda for discussion in the intergovernmental conference or Committee — bringing together the Government in London with the devolved institutions and Executives in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff. I too would be anxious to have this issue addressed in that forum. The experiences of other places, together with those here, and our reflections on those experiences, will lead to the kind of modifications which will address, as effectively as possible, these points. They may be at the more general level or, in respect of flexibility and modifications, they might be adopted more appropriately for the particular regions.
The motion focuses on the needs of the long-term unemployed, but as the debate has demonstrated, Members concerns’ extend beyond the long-term unemployed in that they want to address the needs of those who are unemployed at age 18. I want to stress that, in contributing to the discussion, I do not intend my remarks to be in any way conclusive. I am indicating our current thinking and taking on board your thinking. It is important that I try to cast the focus of the motion in the wider context of the whole of the New Deal Programme, as Members have done.
As Members are aware, the New Deal programme was introduced in April 1998. It is delivered by the Training and Employment Agency, in partnership with the Department for Social Development, and is aimed at increasing the employability of the unemployed in society, by helping them enter or return to work. New Deal is one strand of the wider Welfare to Work initiative, which also includes such measures as the national minimum wage, working families’ tax credit, the national childcare strategy, and it also complements other agency programmes, such as Worktrack. When taken together these represent significant steps in assisting people to enter into and remain in employment.
My Department has been allocated £163 million throughout the life of the present Parliament, from the windfall levy imposed on the privatised utilities. This is to fund the New Deal programme for the unemployed, and other New Deal programmes for the disabled, over-50s, lone parents and partners of the unemployed. The resources provided from the windfall levy, as several Members noted — some critically — are ring-fenced for New Deal purposes. New Deal is a national programme, and it has been implemented consistently across the regions of the United Kingdom.
The delivery of New Deal in Northern Ireland is very much on a partnership basis. There are 26 New Deal consortia, mainly comprising training organisations, further education colleges, voluntary sector and environmental organisations, working together to a common purpose. This is a very important feature of the delivery process. Some Members seem to suggest that there is very much a top-down delivery in operation here.
The delivery is taking place within the context of consortia that are locally focussed and locally drawn in terms of membership. They are intended to create real working partnerships. If there are difficulties with respect to the partnerships — and some comments suggest this — then undoubtedly we need to hear about them. Delivery is intended to be as close as possible to those whom the NewDeal programmes are designed to serve. That is a very important feature.
Some Members may be familiar with the situation, either through direct participation in some of those consortia, or close delivery within particular consortia, because where they operate may depend on the area they represent. Consortia and NewDeal personal advisors based in the network of Training and Employment Agency job centres work together to provide opportunities for training and work experience placements for the unemployed in their local areas.
The implementation and monitoring of NewDeal delivery is overseen by the Northern Ireland NewDeal taskforce — a widely representative group. This taskforce is investigating aspects of NewDeal with a view to improving its operation, and it is in this context that the ongoing monitoring of the delivery of NewDeal takes place. The taskforce provides to my Department and, therefore, to me a considerable amount of information, opinions, comments and indeed recommendations for improvement, and I will advise Members of progress so far, and of future plans.
When NewDeal was first introduced, unemployment in Northern Ireland stood at 7.6%. By August 2000 this had reduced to 5.2%, partly due to the impact of NewDeal. The increased employment opportunities in the local economy have, of course, also been a major and, perhaps, overriding factor, although New Deal is generally not given the significance it deserves for effecting some of these changes.
Some comments have been made in the context of the situation which existed at least five or six years ago, but fortunately, we are in a rapidly changing labour market situation. I acknowledge that this situation is not the same in all areas. There have been greater improvements in some areas than in others. Overall, however, there has been significant and positive development.
The decrease in unemployment represents over 13,000 in the number of registered unemployed people during the period referred to. In the two main categories of people eligible for NewDeal, the numbers registered as unemployed have declined by over 12,000 since the programmes began. This decrease represents over 90% of the total reduction in unemployment over the period.
By contrast, the level of unemployment among those who did not participate in NewDeal has remained virtually static over the same period. That is one of the most important illustrations of the contribution that NewDeal has made to unemployment rates. NewDeal has proved very effective in helping the unemployed to return to work. Of the 12,000 people who left the register, over 10,000 found new jobs. Several Members commented that these jobs may not provide the level of career satisfaction that is necessary. I acknowledge this — some of them have obtained jobs at a lower level than we would have liked.
Therefore we need to reflect on this matter in the context of the outcome of the New Deal experience. Indeed, that forms part of the ongoing monitoring and tracking of those undergoing the whole programme.
The work experience and training afforded in the context of placements in voluntary and environmental projects have benefited the New Deal participants, the organisations involved and the communities they served. Again, I acknowledge Members’ comments, contrasting the voluntary organisations’ experience of New Deal and ACE. There is a much reduced pool of unemployed labour now available from which to attract participants into the voluntary organisations that are so anxious to avail of this kind of support. If we have a smaller pool, the difficulties in filling the kind of places that might be made available — and indeed by comparison with the past, were available — is evidently a considerable problem. However, we are trying to work with voluntary organisations to address that issue.
The New Deal programmes continue to evolve and develop in the light of experience. Following the end of the current New Deal 25plus pilot scheme in March next year, a revised programme for that group will be implemented.
My Department has recently conducted a wide ranging consultation exercise involving, among others, a New Deal taskforce, personal advisers, the Education and Training Inspectorate and those organisations involved in the 26 delivery consortia.
Given our experience in running the largest New Deal 25plus pilot scheme in the UK, I have recently written to TessaJowell, the British Minister responsible for the Welfare to Work programme. I have recommended enhancements to the revised New Deal 25plus programme, which will lead to better tailored provision for the unemployed in Northern Ireland. These recommendations, together with those for the 18 to 24-year-olds, can be summarised as follows: for the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, we are recommending the introduction of a more flexible programme that will more adequately meet the individual needs of young people. Several Members stressed the need to ensure that programmes were tailored as individually as possible. We are recommending an increase in the percentage of output-related funding, currently devoted to a successful employment outcome, to provide a stronger incentive. We are recommending a more flexible follow-through provision to allow those who would benefit to take up a different New Deal option if they have completed one option and have still not gained employment. We are also recommending an extension of short vocational courses provided during the initial, or gateway, period from the current two weeks to four weeks.
I am particularly concerned — as was highlighted in MrDallat’s remarks — about the problems of literacy and numeracy encountered within New Deal. I should already be at a meeting with members of the basic skills committee, which was established at the end of last year. They are reporting progress on how they are addressing that particular scourge — it probably deserves such a strong term — which afflicts so many. They are making several recommendations, one of which will involve ways in which they can work closer with New Deal providers in order to address this particular need.
I trust we will be able to see much more progress in addressing that problem in the context of New Deal and in further education provision generally. I share Mr Dallat’s reflection that a lot of questions have to be asked why there are such high levels of illiteracy and innumeracy among young people emerging from our educational systems.
Returning to New Deal for 25 plus, we are recommending an extension of the intensive activity period element from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. Many Members should welcome that recommendation, given the emphasis the issue has received in many of their remarks today, in Committee, and elsewhere.
The intensive activity period provides participants with an individually tailored programme consisting of work experience, job-focused training and supervised job-search activity aimed at helping them into employment at the earliest opportunity.
We are also recommending the introduction of a £750 training grant, similar to that within the 18 to 24 New Deal scheme, for those who wish to gain a vocational qualification during the intensive activity period or while in subsidised employment. The intensive activity period is to be re-named as "Paths to Employment", giving a much clearer indication of its aims and objectives.
We are recommending the retention of the education and training opportunities included in this New Deal programme that provides up to 52 weeks’ NVQ level training. In our view, this facility has been particularly beneficial here.
We are recommending early entry to education and training opportunities for certain groups who do not meet the normal eligibility criteria, for example, women returning to work, and those suffering the effects of large-scale redundancy, such as the unfortunate event last week at Harland & Wolff. Redundancy has also affected several sections of the textile industry — a point highlighted by Mrs Nelis. We are recommending a reduction in the eligibility threshold from 18 months’ unemployment to —

Mr Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister because he is responding to questions, but I must ask him to draw his remarks to a close.

Dr Sean Farren: I need just two minutes, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your indulgence.
We are recommending a standardised policy on benefit sanctions within both New Deal programmes.
With respect to the New Deal for Lone Parents programme, we are recommending that the facility allow lone parents on income support to access those opportunities available within New Deal that are currently targeted at those in receipt of jobseekers allowance.
I am confident that these recommendations will receive full consideration and I look forward to a positive response.
In conclusion, I would like to place on record my personal thanks to the New Deal personal advisers, many of whom I have met on my visits to jobcentres. They have played, and continue to play, a pivotal role in the success of New Deal. We are moving to reduce the numbers of people advisers have to deal with, and I appreciate that those high numbers are a matter of concern; they are a matter of concern to me. I hope that we will be able to take action on that very soon.
Those delivery organisations working in partnership through the consortia arrangements are also to be commended for their professional and committed work in helping the unemployed to gain the skills and attributes necessary to get back into the labour market. The members of the New Deal taskforce who recently provided me with their programme of work have been instrumental in ensuring that the views of employers and other interested parties are brought to the fore. They have continued to fulfil a valuable role in overseeing New Deal implementation.
I thank all the Members who have contributed and I assure them that if I have not had the opportunity to address the particular issues they have raised, I will do so either in Committee, at an early stage, or by correspondence.
I assure Members that I too am deeply committed to ensuring that we have the most effective means possible of providing training for the unemployed, whether they are on the register or not. Some are not on the register and that is an area that we did not mention, but I do not have time to go into it now. For those who are interested in that, I invite them to read ‘Young People and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland: "Status Zero" Four Years On’. This report was published by my Department during the summer. It is a study of the circumstances of young people who cannot find work — those on the furthest margins of our society. We must have a deep concern for these people, and I hope that we will soon be able to address that concern in a cross-departmental, multi-agency way.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I too thank those who participated, including the Minister. All agreed that long-term unemployment is unacceptable, especially in those cases — a sizeable proportion of the total — where the individual has not chosen the position. Rather than going through the rigmarole of listing individual contributions and summarising them, I will focus on what most agreed were the pressure points and difficulties in the current system.
First, there is a problem with basic skills acquisition. It is unfair to lay this at the door of Minister Farren, but this Department has to deal with the products of other Departments. There is an important issue here concerning literacy and numeracy — or the lack of it.
There was agreement about the inadequate duration of placements for trainees on New Deal. It was also agreed that the personal advisers were often seriously overcommitted, and this was reducing the level of individual one-on-one contact that is necessary to bring somebody out of a situation of long-term unemployment.
The lack of office space for the programme was mentioned. Further development is needed of data on what is happening to people who go through the programme and on what happens to them afterwards. There was much recognition that the training standards set for New Deal are too modest. That touches on a much broader issue concerning the adequacy of training and skills levels in the Northern Ireland labour force.
There were differing views expressed about the benefits, or otherwise, of the element of compulsion in the New Deal programme. Mr R Hutchinson rightly made the case for that element of compulsion with respect to encouraging people to move from benefits to work.
With regard to the Minister’s comments, the Committee welcomes his efforts, to date, to secure change in New Deal at the UK-wide level. It also welcomes the commitment that he repeated today to continuing the partnership approach between the Training and Employment Agency and the locally based consortia.
The Minister rightly referred to the decline in the headline unemployment rates from approximately 7·6% to 5·2%. The Committee members and Assembly Members welcome that. However, there is, as the Minister noted at the end of his speech, a problem of inactivity. Some people have totally withdrawn from the formal labour force and none of us can be complacent in that regard.
This afternoon, we have had a series of suggestions and recommendations about how New Deal can be fine-tuned. We are not planning to destroy the system but to carry out wholesale reform. Some of those changes can only be made as part of a UK-wide change; others can be made through local initiatives. We are confident that, if there are such changes, New Deal will not simply be a new deal but what we really want: a fair and square deal for those who suffer from long-term unemployment. I urge the House to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to review the New Deal programme to tailor it to the needs of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland.
The sitting was suspended at 2.00 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

Finance and Personnel

Domestic Rate

Mr David Ford: 2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what consideration he has given to introducing an alternative to the domestic rate.
(AQO65/00)

Mr Sean Neeson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to proceed, bearing in mind that the Minister is not due to answer questions at this time?

Sir John Gorman: It is in order for the Minister to proceed.

Mr Mark Durkan: I intend to review the rating system in Northern Ireland, and I will be considering the terms of reference for that review later in the year. The continuing use of rental values as a basis for the local taxation of domestic properties will be considered in the review.

Mr David Ford: I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the topic is under review. However, I am a little concerned that he appears to be talking solely about a variation of the rate and is being unclear on the subject of possible improvements in local income tax, site value rating or any other number of current proposals. Is it not somewhat unfortunate, that in the new dispensation and arrangements here, we cannot look beyond the old system with slightly more enthusiasm?

Mr Mark Durkan: The question obviously related to whether we were considering an alternative to the domestic rate. I have explained that we will be reviewing the overall rating situation, and that will obviously include questions related to domestic and non-domestic rates. Let us be clear, however, that when we are reviewing the rates, we are looking at a property based taxation system. The forms of taxation to which the Member is referring are obviously different from that and would have to be considered in a different and wider review. That is a point which we previously dealt with in this Chamber.

Mr Alex Maskey: I have a further question in regard to the rates and the review. Given the difficulties we have had in the past, when reviews had not been conducted for many years, can the Minister assure us that there will be an attempt to institutionalise the reviews on a limited number of years, to guard against past difficulty with the rates relief system?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member is not so much referring to the review of the overall rating policy and processes that we are talking about, but rather to the question of revaluation. We announced last week that a revaluation of non-domestic properties is to take place. We are now doing precisely that to avoid what happened at the time of the last revaluation, when it had been a couple of decades since one had been done. When that revaluation took place, there were some significant swings, and some found themselves badly caught out and badly affected. That is why we are revaluing non-domestic properties on a more regular basis. It has been a very long time since the last revaluation of domestic properties, and I have concluded that it would be inappropriate to open up a revaluation of domestic properties until we have seen the work taken forward on the overall review of rating policies and procedures.

EU Initiatives

Mr John Dallat: 3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to update the Assembly on the four European Community initiatives: (a) LEADER, (b) INTERREG, (c) URBAN and (d) EQUAL.
(AQO 73/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: Progamme proposals for EQUAL were submitted to the European Commission on 15 September by the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department for Social Development and the special EU programmes bodies are preparing programme proposals for LEADER, URBAN and INTERREG respectively. These proposals will be submitted to the European Commission by the following dates: LEADER 17 November; URBAN 18 November; and INTERREG 22November.

Mr John Dallat: The Minister will be aware that there have been rumours about reductions and, perhaps, increases in the amount of money in some of these initiatives. Can he indicate to the Assembly the amounts of money, and if there are reductions, can they be made up?

Mr Mark Durkan: Changes in the figures may be related to the fact that some indicative figures were previously given, particularly when the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I visited Brussels in relation to bring forward work on the community support framework. The community initiatives were also discussed, and at that stage a total of £67 million for community initiatives was suggested. We are now looking at £75·8 million. If we were to retain the 25% minimum for match funding, that would give us a total of £100 million.
However, in relation to two of the initiatives, INTERREG and URBAN, the indicative figures we looked at earlier in the summer have now been reduced. Instead of £11 million for URBAN, we are now looking at £6·7 million, and at £51 million for INTERREG, where previously we thought we were expecting £59 million.

Northern Ireland Block Grant

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to explain the impact of the miscalculation by Her Majesty’s Treasury of almost £70 million on the Northern Ireland block and to detail how this situation can be rectified.
(AQO 49/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: The over-allocation of £23 million per year in the year 2000 spending review is to be corrected through adjustments to end-year flexibility, so that the immediate effect on the Executive Committee’s planning is kept to a minimum. In the end, over the next three years our spending power will be in line with the region’s entitlement through the Barnett formula.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Minister confirm that, although the miscalculation in Treasury moneys was announced earlier this month, it was known about in July, days after his public announcement on spending? If so, why was nothing done at that time to inform the public about this miscalculation? Was he, or the Treasury, sitting on this information?

Mr Mark Durkan: The error emerged at the end of July, and we contacted the Treasury to seek further consideration of the matter. In a situation like this, we had to accept the principle that mistakes, when they are shown, must be corrected. However, this was a Treasury mistake in figures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House. We made it clear to the Treasury that, if its chosen method of dealing with the apparent over- allocation had been to take it out of the end-year flexibility, we would need to be upfront when presenting figures to the House — and it should be remembered that we have not previously presented figures — or to the Committee. This is not the only issue consequential to the Chancellor’s announcement, on which there has been ongoing contact with the Treasury. We do not have the full and final picture.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Can the Minister assure us that the use of the Barnett formula does not close opportunities for the Executive to influence how much is received from the Treasury?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Barnett formula imposes on Northern Ireland serious difficulties, because expenditure allocated to us is effectively tapered on a per-capita basis, so we, in Northern Ireland, do not get the same benefit of increases announced across the water. We see that, particularly, in some of those programmes which were the subject of major headline announcements in the 2000 spending review.
However, the fact that we have the Barnett formula does not, in itself, limit scope for discussion on how the formula is applied. The outcome of the last spending review was significantly improved thanks to representations to the Chief Secretary by the First Minister, the Deputy First Member and myself. In particular, a correction in the treatment of VAT in the formula and the extension of the formula to cover expenditure on London Underground together produced an additional £40 million per year for Northern Ireland.

Relocation of Government Offices

Mr Roy Beggs: 6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if, in considering the possible relocation of Government offices, he will favour relocation to those constituencies which currently have the lowest numbers of civil servants.
(AQO 39/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: Work is currently underway to develop a Civil Service office accommodation strategy, which will include a review of the current policy on job location. It would be inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of that work. The current number of Civil Service jobs in an area, in proportion to the local workforce, is one of a number of relevant factors to be taken into account.

Mr Roy Beggs: Given the low numbers of civil servants employed in East Antrim and the congestion on the A2 Carrickfergus-Belfast road and the A8 Larne-Belfast road, does the Minister agree that it would make more sense to actually locate the jobs in the constituency? East Antrim has the third-lowest number of Civil Service jobs.
Secondly, will he undertake to review the figures quoted in his answer to a question I asked earlier? It appears that, with only 233 Civil Service jobs in Larne and Carrickfergus, he has included the entire borough of Newtownabbey. East Antrim may actually have the lowest number of Civil Service jobs of any constituency.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. If there has been a map reading error in any previous figures, we will look at that, try to confirm the proper figures and make any necessary corrections.
It would be inappropriate for me to be drawn on any specific location. We want to make sure that this review is founded on premises to which everyone can adhere and which everyone in this House can recognise as proper. We cannot do a review that has, as a starting point, particular fixed locations to which we want to relocate jobs. In any review of policy, and in any new location policy that might emerge, numbers of existing Civil Service jobs relative to local workforce would be one of a number of factors to be taken into account. Other factors would include new TSN indicators, regional planning strategy, the effects on equality of opportunity in the Civil Service, and, not least, service delivery, business efficiency and cost.

Mr Alex Maskey: The Minister has just answered my question.

Sir John Gorman: That is the second time today that a Member has been kind enough to concede that.

Extra Exchequer Funding

Mr Sean Neeson: 7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what plans have been made to distribute the extra funding that has recently been made available for Northern Ireland by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(AQO 64/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: I am currently drafting budget proposals to be presented to the Executive Committee very shortly. This draft budget will reflect the outcome of ongoing discussions with ministerial colleagues and the priorities developed by the Executive Committee in the Programme for Government.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he assure us that the Assembly itself will be consulted on that spending? Will he also assure us that the Assembly will be kept up to date with whatever progress is made? Thirdly, will he tell the Assembly whether this extra funding will have any impact on the proposed privatisation of Belfast harbour, bearing in mind the delay of schemes because of disagreement on the way forward on that particular issue?

Mr Mark Durkan: On the first point about keeping the Assembly informed, I will present a draft budget to the Assembly in mid- October, after the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have presented the Programme for Government. The Assembly and its Committees will then have to consider that draft budget. My Department has been in discussion with the Committee of Finance and Personnel, and others, to try to optimise the opportunity for the Assembly and its Committees to give proper and due consideration to the draft budget.
A vote needs to be taken on the draft budget, and we hope that it will be agreed by mid-December, so that all the secondary budget holders will know what they are getting and can plan accordingly. On the question about additional money, the Chancellor’s announcement indicated an increase in funding for Northern Ireland — a total of £2.1 billion for the next three years, covered by the spending review, including an additional £1 billion in the third year. I hope, however, that the Assembly’s interest, and that of the Executive, will not be confined to that notional extra money. We need to look at the total picture, the total spend and the total quality of that spend. That will certainly be the case in the context of the developing work on the Programme for Government.
With regard to Belfast harbour, nothing in the current spending plans, or in the estimates previously presented, is predicated on the sale of the harbour.

Sir John Gorman: The questions down for answer by the Minister must be adhered to, and at the set time. As Mr Close and Mrs Bell were not here — and Mrs Bell is still not here, —I have to suspend the sitting until 3 o’clock, when Msde Brún will answer questions on the Health Service.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not possible to move to the next set of questions?

Sir John Gorman: We have seen two instances where people have not appeared to ask their questions. This might be repeated if we depart from the rather formal time allocation of half an hour for each Minister to answer questions. To set such a precedent might be dangerous, so if the Member does not mind, we will suspend the sitting.

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. Is it reasonable to exclude Mr Close’s question, given that the Minister of Education was to answer questions first? Mr Close was, therefore, not entirely at fault for not being in the Chamber.

Sir John Gorman: The Member will find that in the Order Paper, the Minister of Health follows the Minister of Finance.
The sitting was suspended at 2.48 pm.
On resuming—

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Shortage of Nurses

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action will be taken to alleviate the shortage of trained nurses in Northern Ireland, and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 61/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Le do chead, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. Ní ba túisce sa bhliain d’iarr mé measúnú práinneach ar líon na n-áiteanna a choimisiúnaíonn mo Roinnse ar an chúrsa trí bliana Dioplóma san Altranas in Ollscoil na Ríona, Béal Feirste.
Ós rud é go n-aithnímid an bharrthábhacht a bhaineann le hearcú altraí agus á gcoinneáil sa tseirbhís, tá 100 áit bhreise á gcoimisiúnú gach bliain feasta go ceann trí bliana. Beidh athbhreithniú rialta ann le fáil amach an mbeidh gá lena thuilleadh áiteanna.
Cuireann mo Roinnse maoiniú ar fáil fosta le haghaidh cúrsa traenála ar leith d’altraí cáilithe a bhfuil tuilleadh traenála uathu le cuidiú leo pilleadh ar an obair. Cuireann trí chuibhreannas oideachais inseirbhíse an traenáil seo ar fáil saor in aisce. Táthar ag dréim leis go mbeidh 107 altra san iomlán ag críochnú cúrsa traenála faoi dheireadh na bliana.
Earlier this year, I asked for an urgent assessment of the number of places my Department commissions on the three-year diploma in nursing studies at Queen’s University, Belfast. In recognition of the fact that the recruitment and retention of nursing staff is crucial, an additional 100 places have been commissioned for each of the next three years. The need for further increases will be kept under review. My Department also provides funding for a "return to professional practice" course for qualified nurses who require additional training to enable them to return to nursing. Three in-service education consortia provide this training free of charge, and a total of 107 nurses are expected to complete training by the end of the year.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: We welcome and pay tribute to the many visitors and workers who come here from all over the world. However, does the Minister agree that, over the years, the authorities have not encouraged local students to enter the profession. Rather they may have discouraged them from doing so because of the unattractiveness of salaries and conditions? Does she agree that the authorities have allowed nursing professionals to take up more lucrative positions outside nursing?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I acknowledge, as the Member has in his question, that we are not just talking about the training of nurses, but about the retention of nurses. We want to ensure that nurses, and other staff, want to join health and personal social services (HPSS) and stay there. My decision to commission the additional 300 student places over the next three years was influenced by a number of concerns expressed by trusts and the independent sector. These include the level of unfilled posts, the difficulties in recruiting and retaining newly qualified nurses, the age profile of the nursing workforce, and the need to recruit nurses from abroad. We are exploring ways of bringing nurses back into the workforce as well as increasing the number of nurses being trained and whether they wish to remain within the service once they are trained.
Queen’s University is currently gathering information on the employment destinations of newly qualified nurses. The Department intends to look carefully at the question of the HPSS workforce with a view to informing future commissioning arrangements. A new HPSS human resources strategy is being worked out in conjunction with the trade unions, and that will include elements to ensure that those working in the service will want to stay here.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister now accept that training has been adversely affected by her decision to allocate and waste £25,000 per annum on her selfish promotion of the Irish language through her Department? Does she recognise that these resources could be used to pay for the training of nursing staff in Northern Ireland? Is she aware of my constituents, Mr Watt and Mrs Gregg, who wrote to her on 3 August and 8 September respectively, imploring her to use the £25,000 on operations for which they had been waiting several months?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: We are looking at the matters of training and retaining people in the service. I have not refused to put in money. I have, in fact, commissioned an additional 300 student nurse places — 100 places for every year over the next three years. That clearly shows how committed I am to ensuring that places are provided. I have also stated very clearly that the Department is looking across the HPSS workforce with a view to informing future commissioning arrangements on the number of necessary places involved. Clearly, I am treating this issue with the importance that it deserves.
Our society is made up of a variety of people; they vary in community background, in social class, in need, and in language. Any decent Minister would recognise, as I do, that any modern service must be able to cater for the whole of this range. The suggestion that one section of that society should be penalised, illustrates the political bigotry which exists in some sections of the House. All sections of society deserve to be treated well, and, in my view, they will be treated well.

Mr Derek Hussey: We all welcome an increase in the number of nurses and the Minister is right in saying that there is a necessary training period for staff. We welcome the original question on the current shortage.

Sir John Gorman: May we have your question, please.

Mr Derek Hussey: The Minister has given a commitment that hospital waiting lists will be shortened. Given the importance of nurses in the treatment system, how does she intend to address the scandalous rise in numbers of those awaiting treatment?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Clearly, as I said when I first announced the additional 100 student nurse places over the next three years, this is a key point in addressing some of the difficulties that are leading to longer waiting lists at the moment. Let me emphasise that recent surveys — the last one was in June — have shown an improved situation with regard to recruitment and retention.
For example, trusts were asked to report specifically on nursing posts which have been unfilled for six months or so. One particular trust is a real cause for concern at present — it has an aggressive recruitment strategy and it is in the process of recruiting more qualified nurses. Some new nurses will come from abroad, and others will come back into the workforce from other posts.
On the wider question of waiting lists, I have set out a clear framework for action as part of which I expect the boards to bring forward detailed action plans. These matters are being addressed at present, and the seriousness of the situation has been taken on board. People throughout the service, at board, trust and departmental level, are doing their utmost to seek answers to the challenges that face us.

Sir John Gorman: We had a wonderful example in the last series of questions. All the questions were answered, and we had a 15-minute break. Now we are still on the first question. Will the Minister please be more succinct?

Mr Danny O'Connor: While the extra 100 nurses to be provided over the next three years are welcome, does the Minister not agree that this is merely a drop in the ocean, that there is a real haemorrhaging of professionals out of the service and that more needs to be done, in terms of job-shares and part-time work, to attract people back?

Sir John Gorman: Please be more succinct.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister assure us that active steps will be taken to recruit more nurses rather than administrators?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I refer the Member to my previous answer. I outlined actions that are being taken on recruitment and also the health and personal social services human resource strategy. I believe that this will ensure that staff will want to join and stay.

Epilepsy

Mr Danny Kennedy: 2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what measures she intends to implement to ensure that the treatment of intractable epilepsy in Northern Ireland, using the proven concept of vagal nerve stimulation, is allowed adequate financial resources and staffing, and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 41/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tugtar an chóireáil seo in Ospidéal Ríoga Victoria amháin. Ionchlannaítear gléas leis an néaróg vagach a spreagadh. Cuireann na boird roinnt othar go Baile Átha Cliath le haghaidh cóireála. Ceapadh an 5ú néarmháinlia comhairleach chuig an Ospidéal Ríoga i mí Bealtaine, ach tá líon na ndaoine ar na liostaí feithimh don chóireáil seo doghlactha ard. Tá mé i ndiaidh a iarraidh ar fheidhmeannaigh an scéal a fhiosrú agus scríobhfaidh mé chuig an Teachta faoin ábhar a luaithe is féidir.
This treatment, which includes and involves the implant of a stimulator of the vagal nerve, is carried out only at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Boards also send some patients to Dublin for treatment. A fifth consultant neurosurgeon was appointed to the Royal in May, but waiting lists for this treatment remain unacceptably high. I have asked officials to investigate this situation, and I will write to the Member about this matter as soon as possible. I thank the Member for his question.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the answer. I did not understand all of it, particularly the early part. Evidently "epilepsy" is not a word that translates into Irish.
I implore the Minister to extend this treatment beyond the Royal Victoria Hospital to other centres of excellence, particularly where that will assist constituents in the Newry and Armagh areas. I ask that urgent consideration be given to ensure proper staffing and funding.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: While it is clear that some of the difficulties that have arisen, such as ensuring that people are not waiting lengthy amounts of time for this treatment, have been addressed, I wish to ensure that officials investigate fully the reasons for the unacceptable length of time that patients have been waiting for this procedure. When I receive the report, I shall consider what further action needs to be taken.

Acute Hospitals Review

Mrs Joan Carson: 3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail her assessment of the need for equality in appointing members to the Acute Hospitals Review Group.
(AQO 48/00)

Dr Esmond Birnie: 10. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to explain why she appointed to the Acute Hospitals Review Group two members who were involved at management level in the DHSS and the Southern Health and Social Services Board and one member who was previously involved in local government.
(AQO42/00)

Rev Robert Coulter: 11. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety which individuals and groups she consulted in regard to the appointment of the Acute Hospitals Review Group.
(AQO 43/00)

Mr James Leslie: 16. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she will make a statement on the involvement of the Government of the Republic of Ireland in the review of acute hospital services in Northern Ireland.
(AQO40/00)

Mr David McClarty: 20. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she will make a statement on appointments from the Republic of Ireland to the Acute Hospitals Review Group.
(AQO45/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Le do chead, a LeasCheann Comhairle, tógfaidh mé ceisteanna 3, 10, 11, 16 agus 20 le chéile ós rud é go mbaineann siad uilig leis an athbhreithniú ar ospidéil ghéarmhíochaine. Tá sé barrthábhachtach don phobal uilig go soláthrófar seirbhísí sábháilte agus éifeachtacha géarmhíochaine ospidéil; seirbhísí ar féidir teacht go réidh orthu. Tá sé sin ar cheann de na tosaíochtaí is mó atá agam féin. Ba mhaith liom gluaiseacht chun tosaigh a ghaiste is féidir, agus is é sin an chúis ar choimisiúnaigh mé athbhreithniú gairid neamhspleách ar gach ní a mbaineann leis an ábhar seo.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall take questions: 3,10, 11, 16 and 20 together since they all relate to the review of acute hospitals and the make-up of the review group.
The provision of safe, effective and accessible acute hospital services is of vital importance to the whole community. It is one of my top priorities. I want to move forward as quickly as possible and that is why I have commissioned a short, independent review of all of the issues involved.
Roghnaigh mé baill an ghrúpa athbhreithnithe ar bhonn go bhféadfadh siad a chur leis an obair thábhachtach seo agus ar an bhonn sin amháin. Tá mé sásta go bhfuil an t-eolas agus an oilteacht atá riachtanach ag na baill a roghnaigh mé agus go mbeidh siad in ann an tsainchomhairle oibiachtúil atá uaim a thabhairt domh. Tá mé sásta fosta go bhfuil gach ball abálta tuairimí gach earnáil den phobal a chur in iúl, mar atá déanta ag a lán acu cheana agus mar a dhéanfaidh siad go leanúnach feasta i rith a saoil oibre. Creidim go mbeidh baill an ghrúpa eolach go maith ar na ceisteanna difriúla atá ag cur isteach ar dhaoine taobh thiar agus taobh thoir den Bhanna, mar shampla, nó ar cheisteanna a bhaineann le pobal uirbeach agus le pobal tuaithe, nó ar an dearcadh ghairmiúil agus ar an dearcadh thuata maidir le seirbhísí ospidéil.
Maidir le ceist an Uasail Birnie, tá súil agam nach bhfuiltear ag rá go bhfuil amhras ann maidir le hionracas, eolas nó oilteacht duine ar bith den ghrúpa. Má tá tuairim ag an Teachta go bhfuil amhras ann maidir le duine ar bith den ghrúpa, tá súil agam go gcuirfidh sé an t-eolas sin faoi mo bhráid.
I selected members for the review group solely on the basis of the contribution they would be able to make to this important work. I am satisfied that the members I have chosen will have the necessary knowledge and expertise and that they will be able to provide me with the objective expert advice I need.
I am also satisfied that they can reflect the views of all sections of the community, as many of them have done, or are continuing to do, in their working lives. The group will be very much aware of the different issues affecting people east and west of the Bann — for example, issues relevant to urban and rural communities, and the professional and lay perspective on hospital services.
In the case of Mr Birnie’s question, I hope there is no suggestion that there is any question mark over the integrity, knowledge or expertise of any individual on the group. If the Member is suggesting that there is such a question mark, I hope he will bring it to my attention. I assure the Member that my door is always open.
As to the members from the South, both have much relevant expertise in hospital services, which will be of benefit to the group. Mr O’Shea was involved in similar work reviewing acute hospital services in the North Eastern Health Board. His experience there, where many similar problems exist, will be invaluable to the group. Mrs Ryan has worked in senior positions in hospitals, both North and South, and she will bring a wealth of experience to the group. The Irish Government has not been involved in the review.

Mrs Joan Carson: I heard some of the reply but I did not understand other bits. It seemed to go on longer in the language which I cannot understand. Does the Minister agree that she received a detailed letter from me, dated 10 August, setting out a number of my concerns about this review group? To date, I have only received two acknowledgements, neither of which addressed any of my queries or concerns. Is the Minister satisfied that this is a competent way to deal with replies to an elected Member of the Assembly? I received acknowledgements on 29 August and 12 September. I do not feel that that is satisfactory. Is the Minister satisfied that, as well as professional competency, there is equal representation of members of the different religious and political communities in Northern Ireland and a good representation of women? Is she satisfied that there has been equality proofing?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I did indeed receive a very detailed letter from the Member.

Mrs Joan Carson: There was no answer.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: It has gone to the Member today. It was a very detailed letter, and it has received a very detailed answer, just as the Questions here today have received very detailed answers. On representation, I am absolutely satisfied that the people I have chosen reflect the views of all sections of the community. Many of them have done so, or continue to do so, in their working lives. All those on the review group, who are from here, have worked in situations where they reflect the views of the entire community, and where they are seen to be working for all sections of it.
To date, there has been no question mark over any of the members or their ability to work for the whole community. The question arises as to whether this Question is, in fact, directed at the make-up of the review group and the people involved, or is a way of directing yet another question at a Minister with a different political viewpoint. The people involved can and will represent all sections of the community. Had I found, when looking at the review group’s make-up, that those debating acute hospital services all came from east or west of the Bann, or that the faultlines followed the division between lay and professional, or between nurse or general practitioner and consultant, I would indeed have been worried that it might not have been able to do the work I had asked of it.
I believe that the representation is sufficient —

Mrs Joan Carson: Mr Deputy Speaker, I must protest that we have not had an answer to my question.

Sir John Gorman: Your written correspondence has received a reply, and I do not envisage any further profit from continuing to pursue the matter.

Mrs Joan Carson: Can I withdraw my question because it is not being answered?

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Minister for her part answer to my question but I still have to ask how she proposes to handle the question of conflicts of interest of members of the review group, in light of their previous positions?
Also, why does the group include somebody who does have clear experience of the set-up in the Republic of Ireland? It would have been more natural to include someone who has experience of the set-up in Great Britain, in light of the current UK-wide NHS national plan, which will have a huge bearing on what happens to acute services within Northern Ireland.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I find it difficult to understand why Mr Birnie wants to balance out someone who has experience of the set-up in the South of Ireland, but does not want somebody who previously worked for the Department and clearly has a knowledge of the set-up here.
This does not take away from his question of why I included someone who was involved in the Department of Health and Social Services. One of the reasons is that they do have a detailed knowledge of the situation here. They also have a detailed knowledge of other work and are highly respected within the community, as a former ombudsman, and in other positions. I was delighted that Maurice Hayes accepted my invitation to chair the group and I am confident that his leadership will command widespread respect. He will bring an informed and independent eye, as well as a rigorous approach to the important work.
The health and social service board is not represented, but Fionnuala Cook, as you will know, is a member of the Eastern Health and Social Services Council, who represent service users in the area. This relates, as I answered previously, to the different balance between those who have professional experience within the system and lay people who can bring the views of service users. Nobody is on the group to represent a particular group.
Therefore, on the questions you ask about each person involved, two are former ombudsmen and, presuming you are talking about Mrs Fionnuala Cook, one works for the Eastern Health and Social Services Council and not the Eastern Health and Social Services Board.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Minister for her acknowledgement of my question in her answer. I note her assertion that the Government of the Irish Republic is not involved in this review. If the Minister has tasked Dr Maurice Hayes specifically with looking at cross-border co-operation on acute hospital provision, how can this be satisfactorily conducted without some reference to the Department of Health in the Government of the Republic of Ireland?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: There is already a great deal of cross-border co-operation in hospital services. If we are reviewing acute hospital services, it would be useful for the group to look at and build on that existing work, particularly on the work of Co-operation and Working Together, which was established in 1992. A lot of this work goes on in the boards, between the boards and through the Co-operation and Working Together initiative. That initiative, and the work building on that, will feed either into the acute hospital review, the North/South Ministerial Council or into reports between the two Governments, if needs be. The acute hospital review will build on that work.

Causeway Hospital: Beds

Mr Gardiner Kane: 4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to quantify the provision of community care that is likely to be required as a result of the 10 fewer surgical and four fewer medical beds in the new Causeway Health and Social Services Trust Hospital in Coleraine.
(AQO 75/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Níl líon na leapacha míochaine á laghdú in Ospidéal nua an Chlocháin, Cúil Raithin. Ach beidh athrú ann sna socruithe maidir le leapacha máinliachta. Méadófar líon na leapacha lae máinliachta óna 12 mar atá anois ann go dtí 22. Dá thairbhe seo, beidh sé ar chumas an ospidéil cóireáil lae máinliachta a thabhairt do 50 othar sa lá. Ar an ábhar sin, beidh 15 leapacha máinliachta níos lú de dhíth agus ba chóir go mbeadh seirbhís níos éifeachtaí agus níos éifeachtúla á soláthar. Ní bheidh tionchar díreach ag an socrú seo ar sheirbhísí cúraim phobail.
The number of medical beds in the new Causeway Hospital, Coleraine, is not being reduced. That is not accurate. There will be a change in the configuration of surgical beds. The number of day surgery beds will increase from 12 to 22, allowing for 50 surgical procedures a day. That will reduce the need for in-patient surgical beds by 15, and should deliver a more effective and efficient service. This configuration will have no direct impact on the delivery of local community care services.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Will the Minister provide a definite date for the opening of the new facility at Coleraine? Uncertainty over this prevails.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I expect the main contract work to be completed in October, and the facility should be open in April2001.

Primary Care Services

Mr Sean Neeson: 5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what priority is being given to the development of primary care services.
(AQO63/00)

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 12. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to indicate what plans there are for the future of the five primary care commissioning pilots established in April1999, given that funding runs out in April2001, and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 47/00)

Sir John Gorman: Minister, you have a perfect right to speak Irish, but it does take time out of your half hour. Any eliding you can do will be gratefully received.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: If I have the right to speak Irish then I also have the time, unless someone provides simultaneous translation.

Sir John Gorman: You have half an hour, as with all Ministers. If a lot of it is spent speaking Irish, then that is time taken out.

Mr Barry McElduff: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Orders inform us that we can speak in a language of our choice.

Sir John Gorman: I am conscious of that, yet there is a courtesy to this House which should be supported by Ministers.

Mr Sean Neeson: I want an answer.

Sir John Gorman: Yes, he is waiting for his answer.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I will answer the Member’s question. I was asked by the Speaker, if I wished to speak in the language of my choice, to make my answers clear in English as well, out of respect to Members. I am doing so. I am showing respect to Members.

Sir John Gorman: It is a question of time. You have only half an hour.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Le do chead, a LeasCheann Comhairle, tógfaidh mé ceisteanna a 5 agus a 12 le chéile. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take Questions 5 and 12 together. Tugtar tús áite ar fad d’fhorbairt seirbhísí cúraim phríomhúil. Mar a dúirt mé i mo ráiteas i mí Meithimh, tá an cúram príomhúil ina chuid lárnach dár gcóras iomlán sláinte agus cúraim shóisialta. Má tá seirbhísí áisiúla nua-aimseartha ar féidir teacht go réidh orthu le bheith ar fáil, tá sé barrthábhachtach go mbeidh cúram príomhúil á fhorbairt.
Ba mhaith liom a chinntiú go dtabharfar a sháith airde ar chúram príomhúil, agus tá mé i ndiaidh cuid mhór ama a chaitheamh i rith an tsamhraidh ag plé na ceiste le réimse leathan daoine a bhfuil baint acu leis an tseirbhís a riaradh nó a sholáthar. Tá rún agam cur leis an phlé úsáideach seo, agus foilseoidh mé go luath moltaí ar na socruithe a ghlacfaidh ionad na scéime cisteshealúchais do liachleachtóirí agus na scéimeanna píolótacha a reachtáladh ar feadh dhá bhliain amháin le cúram príomhúil a choimisiúnú. Déanfar comhairliúcháin i dtaobh na moltaí sin.
The development of primary care services has a very high priority indeed. In my statement in June, I said that primary care is an essential part of our whole system of health and social care. Its development is crucial to the provision of accessible, convenient and modern services. I want to make sure that primary care receives the attention that it deserves. Over the summer, I spent a great deal of time in dialogue with a wide range of people involved in the management and delivery of the service.
I intend to build on this useful dialogue, and I shall shortly publish proposals for consultation on arrangements which will replace GP funding and the primary care commissioning pilots, which were established for two years only.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Sir John Gorman: The time for this subject is up.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Sir John Gorman: If you wish, but unless it is something which is included in the Standing Orders I am not prepared to take it, because the time is up.

Mr John Kelly: It is a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Were you instructing the Minister not to speak in Irish?

Sir John Gorman: I did not say that. What I did say — granted, my microphone was not switched on, but I have a fairly audible voice, or so they tell me — was that in the case of questions to relevant Ministers, we are limited to time. I proved that to everyone in the manner in which I dealt with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, when he got through the questions so quickly that we had to adjourn for 15minutes. A specific time is laid down for questions. If MsdeBrún or any other Minister wishes to speak in another language, that takes up time. It is time, rather than the second language, that is the problem.

Mr John Kelly: I suggest, a LeasCheann Comhairle, that Irish is not another language, but an indigenous language.

Sir John Gorman: I am sorry. I am not prepared to argue this — [Interruption]
The time is up. Order. I have made my ruling clear.

Education

New Schools: Criteria

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 2. asked the Minister of Education at what stage the review into criteria for new schools, including integrated school and Irish-medium pupil numbers, will be published.
(AQO 59/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: Dia daoibh go léir. The purpose of the review is to examine the viability criteria for grant-aid status for new integrated and Irish-medium schools. I hope to be in a position to issue a consultation paper on the proposed changes next month.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Does the Minister agree that under the current application procedures for integrated schools, people from mixed, or other backgrounds are forced to declare themselves as being either Catholic or Protestant in order to meet the criteria for creating and sustaining integrated schools, and that this approach runs counter to the spirit of integrated education?

Mr Martin McGuinness: This issue came up previously in relation to mixed marriages. As far as I am concerned, this is an issue which needs to be examined during the course of the review. Under the Education Reform (NI) Order 1989, integrated schools must provide for the education of Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils. The legislation does not impose specific balance requirements, but it indicates that integrated schools should aim to attract reasonable numbers of Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils. The Department’s current arrangements are completely in line with that objective.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá a fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil sé de dhualgas air an Ghaeilge a chur chun tosaigh. The Minister knows that his Department is duty-bound to take resolute action to promote the Irish language —

Sir John Gorman: Order.

Mr Barry McElduff: — to promote the Irish language, to encourage and facilitate it. What steps are the Minister and his Department taking to encourage Irish-medium education?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I am taking forward a range of measures in the context of the Department’s statutory duty to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education. A new body to promote Irish-medium education, to be known as Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, was established on 9August 2000, and it has met on a number of occasions. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta will undertake a range of tasks, which include the provision of advice to the Department on issues such as the strategic planning of Irish-medium schools and units.
Other tasks include the identification of teacher-training needs, the development of training arrangements for Irish-medium education and fund-raising to assist in the development of the sector, including liasing with the Department about the establishment of a trust fund for Irish-medium education.
The establishment of this body represents, in my view, an important milestone in supporting the further development of the Irish-medium sector. In addition, a trust fund to support the development of Irish-medium schools is being established, and I expect to have arrangements in place for that by the end of October 2000. That fund will be an important source of interim support for developing schools.

Learning Difficulties: School Leavers’ Records

Mr John Dallat: 3. asked the Minister of Education to outline the arrangements for reference to learning difficulties in the records which school leavers take into their future careers as they pursue further employment or training opportunities.
(AQO 56/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: All pupils have the right to receive documentary evidence of their achievements and accomplishments, both curricular and non-curricular, during their school careers. This is provided in the form of a summative record of achievement that must include certain specified information. However, there is no requirement that information about learning difficulties be included in a pupil’s summative record of achievement.

Mr John Dallat: Is the Minister aware that training organisations recently gave evidence to the Committee of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, which indicated that there are serious problems with identifying the special needs of the unemployed? Does he agree that there is an urgent need to develop a joined-up approach to education and training so that social inclusion and life-long learning become a reality for all children, especially those who have been unfortunate enough to leave school with serious literacy and numeracy problems?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Part of this question relates to the jurisdiction of Dr Farren, the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.

Sir John Gorman: It is still a very important question.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Absolutely — I am aware of the point which has been raised.
While there are restrictions on the disclosure of statements of special educational needs, education and library boards can provide copies of statements to colleges with the consent of young people or their parents. Board educational psychologists can also provide up-to-date psychological assessments on young people with special educational needs when requested to do so by colleges. However, there are no formal arrangements for statements to be disclosed to potential employers, although the young person or the parents could choose to supply a copy.
The careers advisory service of the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment is obliged to provide careers advice to young people, with statements of special education needs from age 14 upward. Young people in special schools for pupils with moderate learning difficulties sample courses at local colleges of further education at the age of 15 to assist their choice on leaving school at the end of that year. Those in special schools for pupils with severe learning difficulties attend similar courses at the age of 18.
In addition, recent projects set up by a health services trust and by (MENCAP) have enabled some young people with severe learning difficulties to gain work experience. Several education and library boards have made arrangements to enable that work to continue.

School Classrooms: Arson

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Minister of Education how many classrooms, whether temporary or permanent, were destroyed by arson over the summer holiday period and how many of these had still not been replaced by the start of the new school term.
(AQO57/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: What happened to question 4?

Sir John Gorman: The Member has not turned up.

Mr Martin McGuinness: There were 14 classrooms damaged in arson attacks over the summer holidays and all of those, except for five severely damaged classrooms at one school, were repaired or replaced by the start of the new school year.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his reply and for his full letter in reponse to the concerns that I expressed about the effects on one school in my constituency — St Joseph’s Primary School in Crumlin. Is it not incumbent on his Department to put in place a plan to co-ordinate the efforts of the board, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) to deal with this eventuality, should a major destruction of property occur in the future, so that children do not lose out on education, as some have so far this term?

Mr Martin McGuinness: We have had a very difficult few months, as Members know. During the summer, nine schools were damaged in arson attacks and 23 schools were attacked in total. It would cost about £400,000 to renovate these schools, and my Department has responsibility for that. There was a particular difficulty with St Joseph’s Primary School in Crumlin. This school was detrimentally affected by the crisis that had developed elsewhere.
Therefore, the Member’s point is reasonable. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we are properly prepared to deal with whatever crisis we have to meet. As I have said on numerous occasions, I regard schools to be as sacred as churches and I hope that those responsible for the damage to schools, churches and Orange halls desist as a matter of urgency. It is hoped that this type of behaviour will not be repeated next year.
We are living in difficult times and we have a responsibility to have contingency plans to deal with any emergency. My hope is that those responsible for burning these establishments will stop and recognise that the way forward is for everybody to live in peace with one another.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Does the Minister agree that those who call others out on to the streets to wind tensions up over the summer months are responsible for the likes of the £400,000 that he mentioned? Does he also agree that the education of children is suffering because of their irresponsible actions?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Given that we are living through a new situation, it is vital that elected representatives — indeed, everybody in society — recognise that they should not be involved in anything that might create the potential for further difficulties on the streets. Elected representatives can take a lead, and they have a responsibility to ensure that they lead by example and show that the community is capable of living and working together.
It is hoped that when people see that happening — and particularly when they see the contribution made by the Assembly — they will recognise that the way forward is for all of us to co-operate with one another and to use whatever abilities and talents we have to lessen tensions on the streets.
The difficulty for the Department of Education is that the attacks on schools have a detrimental effect on the education of the young people who go to those schools. During the summer, I saw classrooms that had been set aside for children with learning difficulties, burned to the ground. This was a desperate sight. These classrooms were closed for different lengths of time, and the children had nowhere to go. In the school on Slate Street in Belfast the work will not be completed until Christmas, so children in these areas are affected when schools are damaged.
People should use their talents and abilities to promote harmony on the streets and do nothing to encourage those who might wish to attack churches, schools or Orange halls.

Mr Derek Hussey: Regarding damage to schools, the Minister will be well aware of the damage caused by a bomb to the school that I used to teach in at Castlederg. However, he will also be well aware of the ongoing damage of Strabane Grammar School. In the annual report this year, the headmaster had this disappointing statement to make:
"Repair work is a cosmetic exercise and of short-term benefit."
Is it the intention of the Minister, via curtailment of capital investment in the controlled sector in Strabane, to decommission the infrastructure of grammar school provision and thus render the current transfer scheme inoperable ahead of the Gallagher Report?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Obviously, I am concerned about damage to all schools. People will be aware that I intend to publish the research into post-primary education on Thursday 28 September. Many people are looking forward to having access to that.
On the issues raised by Mr Hussey, it is very important to point out that this research does not make any recommendations. Its whole purpose is to provide an objective report on the effects of selection on pupils, schools, teachers, parents and society as a basis for an informed debate on the issues. The aim is to develop post-primary education arrangements which best meet the needs of pupils, parents and society. All pupils should be given the opportunity to reach their full potential, and this means maintaining and enhancing existing high standards and raising standards where they are low.
Proposals for change will emerge following careful consideration of the views expressed during public debate. In these discussions I want the focus to be on quality educational outcomes for all children rather than simply on structures. I take this opportunity to let people know that a short research briefing, summarising the key findings, will be circulated to all schools, and other interested parties, along with the more detailed main report. A further document, containing all the individual research reports — and there are some 23 of them— has also been produced, and it will be circulated to our main education partners, teachers’ unions and political parties. Each Assembly Member will receive a copy of the briefing and main report. Copies of the research documents will also be available in all branch libraries.
In addition, copies of the research briefing and main report will be provided by the Department on request. All the research documents will be posted on the Department’s Internet site from 28 September and may be copied for use.

North/South Ministerial Council: Sectoral Meetings (Education)

Mr Danny Kennedy: 6. asked the Minister of Education when he will fulfil the commitment he gave to the Assembly on 11 September 2000 to establish a mechanism to inform, in advance, the Education Committee of the issues to be discussed at North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meetings.
(AQO 67/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I did not give the Assembly any commitment to establishing a mechanism to inform the Education Committee of the issues to be discussed before a North/South Ministerial Council meeting takes place. I had no need to give such a commitment because such a mechanism already exists.
All Assembly Members are informed in advance of the date and place of the meeting, the names of the Ministers nominated by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and of the issues under discussion by way of a copy of the agenda for the meeting. Thus, members of the Education Committee are fully aware in advance of the issues that will be discussed at each council meeting.
However, I recognise that the Education Committee has a legitimate interest in the matters under discussion at the sectoral council. For procedural reasons, I cannot provide the Committee with the papers that are put before the Executive Committee and the North/South Ministerial Council. However, in future I will provide the Chairman of the Education Committee with a summary of the matters considered at each meeting of the council.
I intend to make this information available to the Committee as soon as possible after I have made a statement to the Assembly following each council meeting.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Let me draw the Minister’s attention to his own words as recorded in Hansard of September 11, page 32:
"I have listened carefully to what the Chairman of the Education Committee and Mrs Bell have said, and they have made an important point. I have no difficulty whatsoever about establishing a mechanism to ensure that the Committee is made aware of the outcome of these meetings before we issue what some would consider to be a bland statement about them."
I understand that we already receive the agendas of North/South sectoral meetings, but the Minister said clearly in his earlier answer that he was prepared to detail to the Education Committee the items discussed at such meetings — not the advance agenda — before making his Assembly statement. Either he will want to apologise to the Assembly for misleading it, or he will want to go back to the Executive Committee. It would serve this Assembly well if the Executive Committee, as a rule, supplied the various Committees in advance with the details of the North/South sectoral meetings before making statements in the Assembly.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I apologise for the error on 11 September. Certain procedural constraints are placed upon me and, indeed, on all the other members of the Executive Committee involved in the North/South Ministerial Council, in relation to when we can provide information to the Committees, and the nature and extent of that information. North/South Ministerial Council meetings, whether plenary or sectoral, are meetings between Ministers of the Executive Committee and of the Irish Government. Ministers attending council meetings are nominated by the First and Deputy First Ministers.
Papers for council meetings are Executive Committee papers, and are restricted under the ministerial code. In other words, the papers themselves cannot be published or made more widely available to Members. The general content of the papers could be conveyed to the Education Committee, but this could only happen after a council meeting had taken place and I had reported back to the Executive Committee and the Assembly in accordance with proper procedures. These procedures apply to all Ministers in relation to meetings with the North/South Ministerial Council.
I have already said that I intend to provide the Education Committee with a summary of the issues under discussion when I make my statement to the Assembly. I have no difficulty with that.

Integrated Schools: Place Applications

Mr Sean Neeson: 7. asked the Minister of Education how many children were denied places at integrated schools this year on first application (that is, before tribunal).
(AQO 58/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The numbers of unsuccessful first applications to integrated schools for admission in September 2000 were 77 for primary school and 570 for secondary school.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his answer. It shows clearly that the demand for integrated education in Northern Ireland, I am pleased to say, is very much on the increase. What plans do he and his Department have to increase the number of places at both primary and post-primary integrated education schools in Northern Ireland?

Mr Martin McGuinness: First , it is important to say that the figures are interesting. They show an increase on last year. I was very struck by that myself. That clearly shows an increase in interest, particularly from parents who express a first preference. I have not set specific targets for the development of the integrated schools sector. The Department’s policy is to respond to parental demand. For example, Ulidia Integrated College has been awarded full grant-aided status from September of this year.
As everybody knows, I am committed to the principles of equality, accessibility, excellence and parental choice in education. I will examine proposals for new schools, using robust criteria to ensure educational effectiveness and the safeguarding of the public purse. The figures are indeed very interesting, and we will have to take account of that. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education will also be watching this. It is to be hoped that we will have some useful discussions with them.

Mr Ken Robinson: Since the Minister mentioned my constituency, East Antrim, and a school there, I would like to ask him if he is aware of the difficulties of duplication of provision in areas like East Antrim. Is he aware of any damage that may have been caused, particularly to the maintained sector — for example, schools in Larne and Carrickfergus, where there are already several hundred extra places? There are already constraints on the public purse regarding education, maintenance costs and money going into the classrooms, and there appears to be a duplication of provision there.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Obviously, in any development of this nature, reservations will be expressed by the various education sectors. At the same time, we must all be conscious of the fact that, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, we have a responsibility to encourage and facilitate integrated education and Irish-medium education. As people become aware of that and the fact that the Executive Committee and a Department of Education are keen to facilitate parents, we will have to consider how we can do that without detrimentally affecting any educational bodies which exist within each school.
That is why the consideration of development proposals takes into account the effect on existing provision. It is absolutely vital that it does and, considering these matters, we must ensure, through the education and library boards in each area, that no matter what reservations people have, their fears are allayed and that we continue to provide first-class education on the basis of parental choice.

Child Abuse

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 9. asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the NSPCC campaign to protect children following demands for "Sarah’slaw", the proposal for a public education campaign on child protection to increase awareness about the nature of child abuse, and if he can tell the Assembly what steps he is taking to put in place such a campaign.
(AQO 35/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have been informed that question nine has been allocated to another Department.

Sir John Gorman: Can you tell us which Minister?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have been told it is the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Nursery School Places

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 10. asked the Minister of Education to detail how many children across Northern Ireland have been given nursery school places in each of the last three years and for what percentage of the age bracket this provides.
(AQO 69/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The number of children given places in nursery schools or nursery units in the 1997-98 year was 8,541; in 1998-99 it was 8,850; and in 1999-2000 it was 9,999. These figures represent 34%, 36% and 42% respectively of three-year-olds at the start of the academic year. I should add that under the pre-school education expansion programme additional pre-school places are being funded in voluntary, private and statutory settings. The programme aims to make provision for at least 85% of all children in their final pre-school year by the year 2001-02.
When will we reach the point when a pre-school education place is available for every child who wants one?

Mr Martin McGuinness: We are committed to continuing with the progress made over recent years. From the year-on-year increase in provision, you can see that we are making tremendous progress. As in all of these matters, it is important for people to understand that I can only deal with the resources available to my Department. This will be a matter for the spending reviews currently taking place. The Department is committed to providing a year of pre-school nursery education for all children as speedily as possible.

Sir John Gorman: The time is up.

Retailing in Northern Ireland

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: That this Assembly accepts and endorses the findings and recommendations contained in the Agriculture Committee’s report ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer?’ and urges the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and everyone associated with the industry to take all necessary steps to implement the recommendations.
When the Agriculture Committee was formed, it began an enquiry into the crippling debts in the farming industry. It seemed that these debts were going to strangle the industry. For those farmers who want to remain in farming, and those who want to save their farms, something must be done to enable them to achieve those aims.
Of course, the Assembly was suspended for a time, but when it returned, the Agriculture Committee said it would apply itself to three main issues. The result of its investigation, the questioning of witnesses and the taking of evidence, produced the first part of this report. Two other parts will follow hard on the heels of this one. This report is a serious one. It looks at ways and means of saving the farming industry. Evidence was sought from seven of the main retailing companies operating in Northern Ireland. This was followed by many lengthy sessions involving representatives of suppliers, packers and marketing bodies. The report sets out 16 recommendations which address four main themes.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
First, it tackles the need for primary producers to become more organised, the help they need to achieve that and the part that retailers can play to enable them to achieve that. Secondly, the issue of retailers importing goods already available in Northern Ireland is addressed. Thirdly, transparency and good communications between everyone in the food chain are dealt with, particularly with regard to prices paid to the farmers at the farm gate. The fourth theme endorses a series of recommendations related to the potato sector, food labelling, and planning issues surrounding large-scale retail developments.
There is now a disaster in the farming industry. It seems that almost everybody involved in the food chain is benefiting, apart from the primary producer. We talked to bankers, and I asked them if they were thinking of committing suicide, if they had changed their large car for a smaller one and if they were financially embarrassed. They looked at me as if I were a fool. I said that the primary producers are selling their cars. Some of them have already committed suicide, and others are bankrupt. So MrBanker is doing very well out of the farming accounts he holds.
We talked to the meat producers, and I asked them the same question. I said "Are you selling your large car? Are you issuing a very sad report to your investors and your customers to the effect that you are about to break up?" I said "I have read some of your annual reports, and the amount of money you are accumulating through this industry is amazing.". They too were embarrassed. It is the same with the middlemen or wholesalers and the retailers.
But what about the farmers? Is it not strange that the primary producer is the only link of the chain to come under such terrific difficulties? I want to put on record that we recognise what the retailing and processing sectors bring to the economy in terms of jobs and valuable benefits. We are not criticising the retailers or the processing sectors, but we are saying to them "Surely everyone in the food chain should benefit. You are getting a good living. You are doing very well. Why should the primary producer not do well?" We also accept and recognise that there are peculiar difficulties in Northern Ireland. We have lower volumes and higher overheads here than in Great Britain. We sought to point that out that there is, however, a duty on all parts of the chain to have equal respect for the others, and that they should try to ensure that everybody can enjoy the benefits.
Farmers must be able to make a living on their farms, or they will be dispossessed of their land. It is as clear as that. The disastrous drop in farm incomes must start alarm bells ringing. Could any other industry exist with such tragic drops — catastrophic drops — in income at producer level?
The sourcing of locally produced goods is a matter of prime concern to the Committee, and we are pleased to note the commitments that have been expressed by retailers on this issue. It is the Committee’s view that achievable targets should be established for the percentage of goods bought by the retailers. A target needs to be produced and stated, and the retailers need to say "We are prepared to reach that target when we are buying goods in a certain part of the food chain."
It seems that there is great hesitancy, however, amongst the retailers and the big concerns to make a commitment on this. If there is a pool of goods in Northern Ireland which is equally acceptable to the consumer, these large chains that are doing well out of the Province should be prepared to help. Why should this money go outside the Province? Should it not stay here and help the farming industry?
There are those who contend that you cannot look into a man’s business and dictate to him. I am not suggesting that, but I am suggesting that there are targets which can be achieved. Sainsbury’s, for example, has written to me admitting that, and it is going to take steps to remedy the situation. I am glad to hear that, and I hope to hear it from other large companies. However, actions rather than words are what count.
How will we know that they have done this? We will know if they are prepared to be absolutely transparent and declare where they are now, where they hope to be in the future and the steps they are taking to achieve their targets.
We recommend Government involvement in the overall effort to keep farmers abreast of consumer performance. The Committee readily admits that there is a degree of suspicion between producers and retailers. However, considerable progress can be made if all sides co-operate with one another, and especially if there is co-operation with the primary producers.
Our major concern is the effect of high import levels on the agriculture industry, particularly when the produce being imported is readily available locally. Why do these large firms persist in buying produce from outside the Province? If they continue to make themselves independent of the local producers, and to get away with it, the farmers will have an even more raw deal. The trouble is that the farmers do not have enough clout against these massive companies, with all their abilities, their finances and their organisations. The Committee saw this when it examined very reticent witnesses who were afraid to talk before their fellows. Some of them told us that because of business commitments they were not prepared to answer questions. This is a deep issue, which goes as far as the person at the end of the chain, the one who makes the money.
We propose that all retailers adopt a voluntary code of practice, similar to that already operated by the Co-operative Wholesale Society. If one organisation can do that, every big chain can do it. Let us have transparency in this matter.
Finally, we have asked the Department for Regional Development to urgently review how it evaluates planning applications from the major retailers. In the Committee’s view, greater account should be taken of the need to protect small retail businesses and to maintain the independent retail sector so it can thrive. The independent retail sector should not be wiped out. There is a need for independent retailers, and they should be sustained.
The Minister has written to the Committee accepting the overall thrust of its report and supporting most of its recommendations. While noting her expression of the need for caution in one or two areas, I am hopeful that today we will hear her specific plans for taking the agreed recommendations forward.
There are a number of areas in which urgent action by the Department could make a real difference. For example, it would be extremely encouraging for farmers if the Minister would state today what additional financial resources are to be made available to implement the recommendations we have made. She has indicated that Peace II funding may be used, and that Treasury match funding may also be considered to assist the setting up of partnerships and to further diversification.
We would like to hear more about the Minister’s plans for assisting the development of the export markets and for bringing a greater level of expertise into this vital area.
One major concern for the Committee is the failure of many farmers to obtain a fair return for their produce and the investment they have put into their business. The Committee fully accepts that we must avoid the possibility of creating a price-fixing cartel among suppliers and retailers. However, the basic problem still exists — how to ensure a more equitable distribution of overall profits in the food chain. My Committee wants to hear the Minister’s proposals for handling this matter.
This report is an important one for the future of our farming industry. The recommendations can and should be implemented forthwith. If they are, then all parts of the food chain will survive and prosper, and the primary producer will have a level playing field. However, if no action is taken, many primary producers will remain at risk, and ultimately the effects of this will be felt by processors, retailers and — most importantly — by the consumer.
I call upon retailers and their suppliers to take heed of this report, and to honour the commitments they made verbally to us in Committee. The consumer must not be forgotten. Retailers must inform shoppers about what they are being offered, and enable them to make informed choices about the quality on offer when they purchase locally grown goods.
Finally, I call on the Minister — to whom our recommendations are largely directed — to take all possible action to bring about the changes envisaged in our report. The agriculture industry is in a perilous state at the present time. For many farmers the next year or so will be a constant and desperate struggle for survival. It is our responsibility to make decisions, perhaps difficult decisions, for the provision of additional funding and other resources that will ultimately secure the long-term health of the industry.
We aim to treat every part of the food chain equally to treat the primary producer as fairly as those who have made vast sums of money out of the farmers’ hard labours and sacrifice. I salute the farmers of Northern Ireland for coming through a very difficult and trying period. We should back them today in securing a brighter future for themselves, their children and their children’s children.

Mr George Savage: I endorse the points made by the Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. I also pay tribute to the time and effort spent by Committee members on preparing this report. The evidence submitted by the producers, suppliers, and retailers of the agri-food industry has given us a better understanding of the problems faced by the industry. We have been able to make more informed recommendations. The Committee recognises that the farmers in Northern Ireland are facing a difficult time financially. Many are facing bankruptcy, and there are no easy answers to the problem. In its report, however, the Committee has suggested a way forward which will be of benefit to the entire community. The Chairman has mentioned the main recommendations of the report, but there are a number of others which should also be highlighted.
The producers’ ability to negotiate with suppliers has been reduced because of their fragmentation as a group. Efforts must be made to enable Northern Ireland producers to operate as one unit, and thereby to maximise their income without operating as a cartel. This would not affect the consumer. It is important that we do not shift problems from one section of society to another. Income to farmers can be improved without any extra burden on consumers.
I welcome the offer of assistance from retailers who have agreed to participate in any new scheme set up to work with producers. This would give producers advice on how to satisfy market demands and deal with production, packaging and distribution. I urge the Minister to give swift and serious consideration to this offer. There must be more co-operation between farmers and the various outlets in both the home and export markets.
In the export field, our aim should be to project the best possible image of what is produced on Northern Ireland farms. To present an image of top-quality food, we must produce top-quality food. Farmers already aim to do this, but assistance is needed. If farmers are to continue to meet the increasingly high standards demanded by consumers, the Minister must provide help. Northern Ireland is proud of its healthy food-production industry. We must build on this by providing assistance, packaging and presentation.
It is sometimes necessary to import produce from outside Northern Ireland, but I urge the Minister to ensure that measures are put in place to prevent disease from being brought into Northern Ireland.
I am thinking particularly of the streptococcus which threatens our potato industry through the importation of potatoes which may be infected with brown rot. Potatoes for import should be inspected before they leave the country of origin, and I call on the Minister to institute such controls as a matter of great urgency.
In last week’s ‘Farmers’ Weekly’ it was reported that Scotland’s potato industry is on red alert after the discovery in a watercourse of the bacterium which causes brown rot. We have also heard reports of an increasing brown rot problem in England. I trust that the Minister will consult with her colleagues in England and Scotland to see what joint measures can be taken to prevent the problem finding its way across the North Channel.
Farmers in Northern Ireland must recognise the need to keep up with modern day practice. We must realise that methods change, and that farmers must change with them. This is something that cannot be achieved by the farmers unilaterally. We must provide assistance through training and advice for farmers on areas such as production methods, marketing strategies, market leads and demands. Such training and advice could be delivered through co-operation between the Departments, the producers, the suppliers and the retailers. I appeal to the Minister to recognise the goodwill that exists within the industry and to harness that goodwill for the benefit of all.
Support for young farmers is a major concern for many. If our industry is to survive, there must be incentives for young people to become farmers. I suggest that consideration be given to the introduction of an early retirement scheme. This would enable older farmers to step aside and let the next generation assume their mantle. However, an early retirement scheme should be linked to a restructuring of the industry, and training to enable young people to accept farming as a career.
A specific case of farmers facing difficulties at present are those in the Silent Valley catchment area who had to take their sheep off the land around the reservoir. They must be offered assistance, and I hope that they will be.
Finally, I urge the Minister responsible for agriculture to build upon this report and to take action on its recommendations. This would allow all in the industry to get their first slice of the cake. It would also provide a basis on which our farming industry could survive, a basis from which farmers could obtain a fair financial return on their investments and labour. Let us not be reactive; let us be proactive in our determination to bring the industry back to an elevated position in Ulster society. I recommend the report to the House.

Mr P J Bradley: When the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee started work, our immediate priority was to take an in-depth look at the massive burden of debt being carried by the farming community and to attempt to seek a fair deal for the farmers of Northern Ireland. None of us was under any illusion about the financial state of the industry and the depth of despair among the farming community. Following the worst two years ever experienced by the industry, the attempt to address the helpless state that farmers were in just had to be given priority.
Members of a number of other Assembly Committees probably thought at the beginning that they were taking over the most difficult situation from previous direct rule Governments. I have no doubt that members of the Health Committee, the Education Committee, the Social Development Committee and the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee believed theirs to be the Committee with the greatest problems. However, I am convinced that I can say without fear of contradiction that the workload facing the Agriculture Committee presented the greatest challenges of all.
The ongoing downward spiral of farmers’ incomes came about through no fault. It came about from factors such as the loss of markets due to the BSE crisis, which the Minister and the Department are strenuously endeavouring to resolve. The strength of sterling, cheap imports and the ridiculously low farm gate prices presented a bleak starting point. In Olympic terms the Agricultural and Rural Development Committee was at the starting line of a marathon with the full knowledge that the long journey was all uphill.
If I did not have the advantage of printed reports and records of the long and numerous meetings that we have had to look back on, and if asked to recall moments and presentations that spring to mind, I believe that many of my recollections would largely coincide with those of the other 10 members of the Committee. For example, I clearly recall the presentation by Mr McGettigan of Musgrave Supervalu Centra, who presented evidence on the same day as the representatives of seven of our largest supermarkets. His explanation of the difference between his organisation and the other groups present was interesting. It demonstrated that through co-operation, family-owned grocery stores could live alongside the multinationals, although he admitted that his grouping did not enjoy the same margin of profit as the large supermarkets. He also went on record to confirm his company’s commitment to supporting the local farming industry when he explained that over 70% of the produce sold locally by Musgrave Supervalu Centra is sourced in Northern Ireland. Even better news was his confirmation that 100% of the beef, lamb and pork sold there is locally sourced.
On the same day we learned that the UK grocery market is not fragmented to any great degree, with four main players controlling 80% of the market. Also, with the exception of the Co-op, they are all accountable to the Stock Exchange. The farm gate and the prices paid to the farmer at the gate are a million miles, and millions of pounds, away from those perceived to rank first in the eyes of the multinationals. I refer, of course, to their shareholders.
As we continued to take evidence and listen to a multitude of wide-ranging submissions week by week, one problem clearly emerged. As if further proof were needed of it, we heard again that the processors, the retailers and the consumer, without any great degree of control being imposed upon them, demand just what they want and dictate just how much they are prepared to pay. Regrettably, the farmers who grow the produce and produce the food do not enjoy such privileges. They have no say whatsoever in the price that they are paid for their produce.
The disadvantage of marketing perishable goods places the farmer in an impossible situation. I agree that a spirit of togetherness throughout the food industry has got to be entered into if agriculture in Northern Ireland is to survive. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will have to lead the way to maximise the potential of co-operation. Unfortunately, when all of the evidence is thoroughly scrutinised, all round liaison amongst everyone involved in the food chain, while desirable, may be difficult to attain.
We had numerous and lengthy discussions with the farming representative bodies, the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association, and from a wide and varied section of people whose interests in the wellbeing of the farmer were genuine and sincere. We also had before us some participants who, perhaps in their own interest or in the interest of those they were representing, sometimes appeared over cautious with their evidence and answers to the Committee’s questions. Overall, the farming industry and all the related problems were gone into in minute detail during our series of meetings.
The only people we did not interview at our meetings were farmers and their wives, but then, those of us from rural constituencies meet with this section of our community on a day-to-day basis, and we are fully au fait with their general problems. That said, none of us know the true extent of the problems being experienced in individual homes. This was clearly brought home to me one day in mid-August by a farmer’s wife. She said
"PJ, we were putting away a few pounds in the hope that one day our children would go to university, but we had to use it to buy clothes for them before going back to primary school".
I wish to reflect upon another significant factor that continually arose during our deliberations: the importance that the word "quality" is going to play in the recovery and future survival of the agricultural industry. Emphasis has got to be placed on providing premium products for premium markets. There was clear evidence that the beef and sheep meat industries are unlikely to survive if they are achieving only commodity prices. Farmers will have to give careful consideration to the potential benefits of joining quality assurance schemes, and support will have to be forthcoming from the retailers and the processors in their willingness to pay a premium to the farmers for quality assured goods.
In conclusion, on behalf of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, I confirm the party’s support for ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer?’, and I repeat my call — made in July following the launch of the report — for everyone involved in agriculture to read the publication and to set about carrying out, to the maximum of their ability, the recommendations that specifically relate to their role in the industry.

Mr Gardiner Kane: I welcome the motion. This has been an attempted assessment of the relationship between primary producers, processors, major retailers and the consumer. It is strikingly obvious that in the agri-food chain the primary producer — the farmer — is in a weak bargaining position. He cannot command greater returns for his farm produce; hence the enormous debt burden faced by farming in this Province.
It seems almost ironic that primary producers of something that is fundamental to life can arrive at a point where the processors and vendors of their product take the lion’s share of returns. The producers, the section with the greatest workload and expense, receive returns which do not even match costs. The major retailing companies have expressed a desire to support local producers, and this has given rise to a co-operative approach to producing, processing and retailing the raw material. Most farming representatives have welcomed this initiative.
However, I share the reservations expressed by some other organisations, who point to the co-operation taking place in the agri-food chain and to the lack of compulsion that would force powerful processors and retailers to take part. On a note of caution, let us remember that co-operative initiatives have been tried over the past few decades, and benefits from them have been varied and sometimes quite minimal.
In my constituency, a lamb producers’ group currently supplies 95% top carcass-grade lambs to a local processor. The processor’s quotes are based upon the average live market prices for that week. Therefore, the highest-grade lambs are bought for the same average price as second-grade and third-grade lambs in the market.
I know of one incident where a co-operative attempted to market pigs, only for the processor, Malton’s, to refuse to accept animals from the co-operative collectively, instead taking supplies from individual members. This is an illustration of how unco-operative the agri-food chain can be and how vulnerable a co-operative is in the hands of powerful processors. I call upon the Minister to investigate the imbalance that we can currently observe in the agri-food industry. I support the motion.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle, I also speak in favour of the motion and endorse most of what has been said by other Members up to this point. The Committee took evidence from representatives of many sources and sectors. As a Committee, we have intervened fairly effectively on behalf of both the industry and the farmers. Of all the volumes of evidence received by the Committee so far, it is the allegations about cartels and the organised control of prices to farmers by meat plants and processors which probably have the potential for the greatest impact on the Committee’s findings. Farmers lack organisation on the ground and as individuals are vulnerable to exploitation by profiteers in the open market. They have consistently provided quality produce, expecting only a reasonable return for their work.
Given proper conditions of fairness and opportunity, producers have the potential to increase quality production. At present, there is an environment of distrust between the primary producers and processors or retailers, unequal partners in an otherwise profitable business. The organised exploitation of farmers may prove to be a major contributor to farm debt for many years before and after the BSE crisis. If this is the case, it would seem that it is in the interests of the profiteers to promote and continue this exploitation for their own selfish reasons.
Beef, sheep and pig producers have had this experience. Farmers are disheartened when they compare the low price they receive with the retail price on supermarket shelves. While prices in the shops have continued to increase over the last few years, farm incomes have fallen by 80%. Primary producers continue to receive low returns and the consumer has seen no benefit either.
A number of elements have combined to cause this dire situation. The BSE crisis and the continuance of the beef ban, Government policies and currency values are all outside the control of the producers. In addition there is marketing, which, I would contend, is also outside the control of the producers. The key responsibility of processors who say that a farmer should get to grips with the marketing side was to sell the produce outside the country and get a good return, and nowadays, funds are being earmarked to these same processors for further marketing drives. If they were doing their jobs properly, they should already have an adequate budget and marketing strategy in place.
The BSE crisis, combined with exploitation of vulnerable producers, has been the most serious cause of farm debt in recent years, so the evidence of small profit margins, which the large supermarket chains gave to the Committee, is clearly untrue. There is no way that shareholders of these large companies would accept returns of 3% to 5% on their money — a 12% to 25% return on capital would be more realistic. Retailers and others in the industry made many conflicting statements to the Committee — they obviously thought the Committee was naïve enough to believe them.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has a major role to play if the present situation is not to be continued. Was the proposal to exclude 2,600 smallholders from early aid payments an indicator of the visioning group’s future strategy for small farmers, offering them the option of leasing their land or planting it for forestry?
The willingness of the Minister, BrídRodgers, to reverse last week’s decision to exclude producers is brave, acknowledging partnership in Government and taking the views of the Committee into account. It is a welcome change from the brick-wall attitude I face when trying to resolve unintentional errors made by farmers when form filling, errors which cost them dearly in lost income and add to the debt situation.
Ministers are new to Government and have to battle their way through an established undergrowth of Departments. Perhaps the learning curve is steep for more than Assembly Members.
Farmers must start to organise themselves to face the obstacles of a difficult market in the future. Resources need to be put in place to help producers achieve organised marketing. I have been given the example of £280million spent by the Southern Government on vegetable importation every year. We could grow that in this country, yet that is the kind of money that is spent on imports. We could have a good industry running on the back of that quite easily. The free market has brought opportunity, but with it has come an environment of greed and an exploitation of those in vulnerable positions for high profit. If we are to have a sustainable future, the high profits made from agriculture produce must give a balanced and fair return for everyone in the industry.
On the island of Ireland, we have one landmass and similar-type farms North and South. It would make sense to have the same agriculture policies North and South — the sooner farmers realise this, the better for everyone. They need to end their dependence on British Government policies — policies which are unsuited to farming here, which contribute to our uncompetitiveness with our counterparts in the South and in other parts of Europe, and which create a major debt factor.
I ask Members to read the report and its findings, and to make themselves aware of the debt details and the recommendations that we are asking be implemented. In asking the Assembly to support this motion, I ask that the farmers be given a fair deal.
It is important that people make themselves aware of the situation. This is a very big issue for the whole country and for rural development. Many issues need to be considered, including food quality and consumer needs.
However, these factors are only part of the resolution. I have not mentioned our findings and recommendations in great detail, but they are there for people to read. I recommend that Members read them and that they support the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I support the motion. My Colleague MrFord, who is a member of the Committee, has other business. He is attending a meeting of the Flags Committee. I do not know that he necessarily got his priorities right between flags and this very important subject.
I support the work of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I am not a member of that Committee, but I remember and understand the contents of the report. It reminds me of the workings of the agriculture committee during the existence of the Northern Ireland Forum, of which I was a member. The contents of this report mirror presentations made at that time, and the recommendations are largely similar.
Many things have been said about the contents of the report. I do not intend to repeat them. I will comment on the quality of the product coming from our farms.
Northern Ireland has a first-class product. The tragedy is that our local producers have experienced difficulties getting that product into supermarkets. Everyone is aware of the particular requests from supermarkets, and of the additional expense those requests put on our producers. That has resulted in decreased profit margins and some producers have been forced out of business.
In my constituency, many producers have great difficulty keeping up with supermarket demands. There are other factors to consider — but producers struggle on, hoping for better times.
I know the Assembly will support this report. If the Committee’s recommendations are put into place, and acted upon, better days must lie ahead. I am delighted to see agreement between the Chairman of the Committee and the Minister, because at the end of last week there were some arguments between them. I am delighted that compromise has been reached.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The press statement did not come from me, it went out from the Committee. I had already heard what the reaction would be and I made it clear to the Committee that I would be attacked — it is on record. The statement was read to the Committee and every Member of the Committee agreed it. I was not scaremongering — it was the Committee.
However, wiser counsels have prevailed. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. I am glad we have saved 2,600 farms, and so is every member of the Committee.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I am sorry if I raised some heckles. I accept what the Chairman of the Committee has said. I hope the report’s recommendations are acted upon and that better days lie ahead, not only for my constituency but for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr John Dallat: I am also a member of the Flags Committee, but I managed to attend both meetings. This report is a celebration of co-operation between the various political parties. It is the result of a lot of hard work undertaken over many hours. It forms a firm basis of hope for the future of the agriculture industry, and the price it can raise for its produce. Pivotal to its main findings is the strength of the supermarkets, already referred to, coupled with farmers’ weakness to organise in a way that commands the best price for their product.
I emphasise the fact that this report calls for collective responsibility in dealing with the farming industry’s problems. I refer in particular to the call on the Department of the Environment to look seriously at ways in which the power of the large supermarkets can be controlled, thereby ensuring that fairness prevails in the retail trade, and that might does not replace right.
I add my support to the call for the Department of the Environment to look seriously at measures introduced in the Republic to protect the independent retail sector. This is critical for many reasons. However, for the purpose of this debate, it is only necessary to say that if controls are not put into place, the multi-nationals will have the capacity to kill off independent retailers and farmers will then be totally vulnerable. In the marketplace, might will be right and the farmer will have no control over the price he is offered for his produce. Former workers in the bread industry will understand what I mean by that.
The issue of whether the farmer gets a fair deal for his produce requires an inter-agency approach. There must be a level playing field so that justice and fair play are not only done, but seen to be done. Where there are codes of practice, penalties must be imposed on those who break them for the sake of a quick buck. Voluntary codes are fine, as long as everyone recognises the benefit of them and does not sacrifice the long-term interests of the industry for short-term gain.
Finally, I hope this report does not gather dust and that it will be implemented in its entirety. I am very conscious that resources are needed to give the farmer a fighting chance of survival, and in this respect I have to pay tribute to the Department.
Further efforts to develop an agriculture industry which produces the goods the public wants — and I particularly refer to Loughry College in that respect — are critical, and deserve the support of all Government Departments. Perhaps most of all, the industry deserves the good will and support of the public who buy the produce. I hope that those listening to this debate will add their support to resolving the plight of farmers and will consider local loyalty when making choices. I believe it is something Northern Irish people are particularly renowned for, and I appeal to them for that. In that way we are not only saving our farming industry but also protecting our rural communities. In doing that we give hope to our rural schools and everything that makes up a rural community. Above all, we must learn from the experiences in England, where even sizeable towns have been seriously undermined by the power and might of the large multi-nationals. Similar experiences are available for anyone to examine in Canada and in the United States.
As I said earlier, the report is the collective response of many people coming from quite diverse political perspectives and I believe that is what the farming community has been calling for. The farming community and their various organisations have been telling politicians for a long time to get their act together so that collectively we can save the agriculture industry. I hope we have seen an end to misunderstandings and shots across the bow between the Committee and the Minister. The public, and farmers in particular, want a collective response. They want teamwork because that is what will work. This report provides the basis for that. It was prepared collectively. The public is aware of that. It is what the public wants.

Mr Jim Shannon: The report is entitled ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer?’ In the past, it has not been a fair deal for the farmers; certainly not in the last few years. Is it a fair deal for the farmer today? The answer is again no. However, this recommendation which the Committee has put forward could bring about a fair deal for the farmer.
I would like to commend the Chairman and his Committee for the work that they have done. The recommendations in the report are excellent. They are a step in the right direction, and I believe that they can address the issues to the satisfaction of the farming community. For too long our Government have been prepared to stand idly by as the agriculture sector and the local producer have been forced to conform to draconian EU legislation.
There have also been changes here following the arrival of the large supermarket chains, which brought with them their own unofficial parameters, in that the farmer had to try to supply what they wanted. In many cases, when forced beyond financial, and even beyond practical viability, producers have gone to the wall. Every one of us could stand here and name producers and farmers who today are not in the business, vocation or job that they chose and thought they would be in for life.
Throughout the crisis, farmers and elected representatives have been crying out for a review of the situation whereby supermarket chain stores can maintain and even increase their prices, while at the same time, the farmer and the producer have seen their profit margins dwindle and disappear. The consumer has lost out as well as the farmer, as the savings have never been passed on. For a number of years our producers have been forced to work under ever-increasing financial strain. Farm incomes have been slashed, yet the supermarkets continue to reap 200% or sometimes even 500% profit on certain farm produce.
In my constituency, many people can name farms that are no longer there. Farms that were in a family for, perhaps, three or four generations are gone today; they have been sold. We know about the knock-on effect, about jobs having been lost in the shops. We can give examples of the domino effect on the community, of the shops in the countryside that are now closed. They are no longer there, because the farmers are not getting the income. When the farmer was doing well, the community did well. When the farmer made money, he spent it in the community, and everybody felt the benefits of that. Today, unfortunately, that is not happening.
The only people to benefit from this system have been the owners of the supermarkets whose profits continue to grow year-on-year. With the huge buying power that the large chains possess, they have purposefully cornered the market and maintained prices at the sometimes artificially high rates that we are now witnessing, and they can do this without any fear of challenge from the lowly independent, because as they have grown, the independents have decreased.
The sooner this monopoly is busted, the better it will be for our producers and for the consumer. Until now the retailer has had an iron grip on the sector and could dictate terms and conditions. It is now time for us to take resolute and necessary action to ensure that the present system, which is clearly discriminatory against both producers and consumers, be de-contaminated, so that our producers can have a fair deal for a fair day’s work. There is a need to provide records to ensure that more produce is sourced locally. Sourcing goods locally would be a very positive move and one that would give the producer and the consumer what they are looking for.
It is very important that facts and figures be produced in order to back up the huge mark-up in prices that supermarkets see fit to impose. For years now, the multinationals have been wiping the eye of local consumers by saying that packaging and supply costs were the reasons why there were such large mark-ups on the price of products.
In the Agriculture Committee’s report, three of the supermarket chains refer to the cost of sale and transport. If the product were being transported from Devon to Edinburgh or from Norwich to Liverpool, one could, perhaps, say that the mark-up was due to the cost of transport, but if a product were being transported within Northern Ireland, I suspect that the transport costs would not be a very high proportion of the overall cost. I do not think that any of us would believe that for one second. Even though, like every other business, supermarkets aim to make money, every citizen needs to see fair play on the part of the retailer.
The first recommendation of the Committee’s report refers to incorporating incentives to develop existing producer groups, and I believe that that would be a very effective way of addressing some of the issues. The Aberdeen Angus group on the UK mainland has already proved that that works, and it has been able to return some profitability to the farmers. There are currently moves afoot to organise a similar group in Northern Ireland to see if it could do the same here.
It is essential to the future success of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland that everyone be involved in the ever increasing and proactive manner in which Northern Ireland produce is being promoted outside the country. Assembly support is the cornerstone of this greater goal. Ulster produce should be marketed and promoted at every agriculture and food show in the United Kingdom and beyond.
Northern Ireland’s produce is superior to that of its competitors, and it is crucial that these high standards be used to market and publicise the product. A clear and lucid picture must be sent around the globe that Northern Ireland’s produce is the best in the world. It should be emphasised that it meets the stringent rules and regulations that apply in Northern Ireland. To do this successfully would go a considerable distance towards giving new momentum to the local industry.
I fully support proposals to form closer formal links among producers to deal with the retail sector. Such links would reinforce and strengthen the hand of the producer. I am confident that every individual who has a stake in any aspect of the local industry would be happy to work alongside the Assembly in an effort to enhance the Province’s profile and reputation. Plans to provide advice and research on new and developing markets are also to be welcomed. While the product may be first class, it will flop unless the supply of the product matches its quality.
On page six, paragraphs 10 to 13 deal with transparency and communication. I welcome this because it refers to accountability. It informs the farmer whether the retailers, in this case the supermarket chains, are doing what they said that they would do and are sourcing locally. The annual returns will show whether they are doing that. Therefore it is not just enough for the retailer to say that they will give a commitment. The agriculture industry wants to see hard facts and hard evidence. So far as transparency and communication are concerned, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Agriculture Committee, believe that they should be replying and recording the local sourcing of produce.
I hope that the full implementation of the recommendations laid out in this report will go a long way to loosening the supermarkets’ grip on the financial viability for our farmers, and that some degree of fair trade will result. I commend the report.

Rev William McCrea: I support the motion and this report. It is a timely report and one worthy of careful study, not only by the Department but also by the agriculture industry. I trust that it will have support in the community.
The title ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — a Fair Deal for the Farmer?’ describes exactly what the Assembly wants. It is asking for a fair deal for the farming community. We are not making any excessive demands, but we desire to have an agriculture industry left in Northern Ireland — one that is vibrant, has promise and has a vision for the future. My Colleague Dr Paisley, Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, and his Committee members have examined the issue carefully. I commend the report placed before the House.
Everyone agrees that the farming industry has been, and still is, in a crisis situation. Nobody can overstate or overestimate the heartache and pain that many farmers in Northern Ireland, and their families, have endured in simply endeavouring to keep afloat. While not making a profit, they have worked hard to keep hold of the property which has been in their family for generations so as to be able to hand it on to future generations. Sad to say, some of them have failed.
As a result of this crisis there are farmers who unfortunately are no longer in the industry. They had a family farm which was handed down to them. It was not theirs to make a profit on and they did not desire to make a great profit by selling it. It was only theirs to pass on. It had been in the family for many generations in the past, and when it came to them they accepted it with great respect.
Unfortunately, because of the difficult times and the crisis they faced, they were no longer able to hold onto it. That was why many farmers were on the verge of committing suicide, yet their products have been excellent. Their working practices, the diligence and the hard work they have put into trying to keep their farms going and their produce of excellent quality, have been very commendable.
So why are they in this situation? Why the crisis? We can identify no single reason, but several reasons brought together can help us to understand what is behind the situation in the farming community in Northern Ireland. The farmers are not to blame for the crisis. Many farmers simply complied with the Department’s regulations, and many of those regulations promised to make the path easy for them.
Many farmers spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to bring their farms up to the standard which the European Community demanded of them. Whenever they faced financial crisis, nobody wanted to know them, nobody cared. The Department held its hands up and said that there was nothing it could do. Yet the amusing thing was that very few companies in the rest of Europe were complying with these quality regulations that were set down by the EU. When this crisis was faced, they were left with no financial backing and no financial support. The BSE situation —

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: One of the measures the Member is referring to is the regulation about stalls and tethers for pig farmers. Does the Member agree that the imposition of those very stringent regulations which were supposed to improve the industry has not worked, and the housewife is not purchasing the best quality pork in Europe?

Rev William McCrea: I wholeheartedly agree. The pig farmers were promised that this would give them a healthy financial return.
However, here is another amazing thing: the very same companies that were taking our quality pigs were also taking other pigs. They were sent out as produce sourced in Northern Ireland, and our farmers did not get their just rewards, and that is still going on at present. Our farmers were certainly burdened with heavy financial costs because of the stalls and tethers and other regulations, and the rest of Europe is laughing at us because we stringently comply with them while the rest of Europe does not.
Of course, when I raised this with a previous Minister, the noble Lord, he said that just because everybody else breaks the rules, we cannot, because we hold our heads up high and walk with our noses in the air. We play by the rules. Everybody else breaks the rules, but they win. Farmers in other countries have been supported by their Governments with grants. They have a healthy industry at the end of it, and we have a crippled one. Pig farmers to whom I have spoken in recent times assure me that it is not healthy to this very day. They are not getting a just return.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that when certain regulations were breached, especially by the Italian Government, the headquarters of the EC did not take any action whatsoever but excused the breach of its own rules?

Rev William McCrea: Of course, this has been going on in Europe for years, and it is continuing to go on. No one has breached the regulations more than France. When their farmers were in difficulty, the French Government gave them money — our Government said there was nothing they could do. They said that France would be taken to court and the farmers would have to pay the money back. I said to them, and there is an official sitting not far from me, that the difference between the French Government and ours is that they save their farmers from going into bankruptcy. They saved their pig industry.
They saved their pig industry, while we sat on our hands and did little or nothing for the people: only a welfare scheme to kill pigs for a humane reason. We are facing grave difficulties.
To add to the problems, we have the questionable commitment displayed by the supermarket chains to local producers. In many of them, in the past, you would have had to get a magnifying glass to find the produce of Northern Ireland. That is ridiculous. They take the money from the system but they do not use the excellent quality produce that we have in Northern Ireland to give to our consumers.

Mr Fraser Agnew: Is the hon Member aware that Danepak is sponsoring a world cup preliminary game between Northern Ireland and Denmark on 7 October at Windsor Park in Belfast?

Rev William McCrea: I join with many of my Colleagues in saying that I am absolutely disgusted by that situation. It is a situation that ought not to occur, especially bearing in mind the calamitous situation of our pig industry in recent months.
To add to the problems, there is a disparity between the prices paid at the farm gate and those charged to consumers. It is absolutely ridiculous. We have a crisis in our country. To be honest, consumers did not benefit from the drop in farm gate prices. They still paid through the nose for their produce. That was how the consumer felt. The farmer was not getting a fair slice of the cake. That is all we were asking for: a fair slice of the cake. I was absolutely positive that there was still a cake in the midst of the difficulty. There was still a cake to be cut and there was profitability there. It seemed that there were those who had their greedy hands out, taking all of the cake and putting the farmers into an impossible situation.
Prices did not even cover the costs of electricity, foodstuffs, meal, water, and all the other costs that have been placed upon our farmers. That is why we are in such a situation. The banks could have been more sympathetic to the farmers’ plight. It is absolutely amazing. To the best of my knowledge, none of the big supermarkets have gone bankrupt. Certainly none of the banks have. All they did in the midst of it was announce big profits. They increased profits while the farmers were going under.
Action needs to be taken to save the farming industry. I accept that at this moment the future of the industry is not bright. Farmers are holding on, believing there has to be a turn. It cannot go any further. There will be restructuring in the farming industry. That is a fact of life, but I say that the Department will have to finance that restructuring. There will have to be money. I heard Mr Blair talk about money. We hear about the same package of money practically all the time. The amazing thing is that everybody seems to get it but the farmers. Very little has actually reached the farmer’s pocket or the farmer’s bank account to keep him from disaster. Young farmers need an incentive. The only way is to have a proper early retirement scheme. That has already been mentioned. The Committee has taken that up in the past. We need to allow the young farming community to keep the farming industry alive.
We have prided ourselves in saying that farming is our primary industry, and so it is. We have a lot to be proud of. The farmers are proud people. But for that pride and that dignity, they would not have even faced the situation let alone continued under the intolerable conditions of the present crisis. This report is asking for a fair deal for farmers. I commend my hon Friend and his Committee. I trust that we will ensure that farmers will not only expect to hear promises from this Assembly, but that money will be provided to back up the promises.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I wish to place on record once again that I welcome this report by the Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development as part of its wider examination of agricultural debt. I thank all Members for their comments and interest in the debate. Comments have been helpful and constructive. I recognise that they reflect Members’ interest in an industry which has been going through an extremely difficult time.
The report deals with a subject that is both topical and important, as evidenced by the level of interest among Members and by the quality of the debate. I commend the Chairperson of the Committee, DrPaisley, for bringing all shades of political opinion, as represented in the Agriculture Committee, together in the production of this report.
The consensus of opinion represented by the Committee and the industry — [Interruption]
I hope that this is not being taken as a joke, for it is a very serious issue.
The consensus of opinion represented by the Committee and industry —

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will the hon Member give way? I was smiling at my Friend Mr McGrady.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I was not referring to the hon Member.
The consensus of opinion represented by the Committee and the industry will clearly benefit farmers, the rural community and the wider community in Northern Ireland, whose interests we all have at heart. Without this consensus, made possible by the new institutions, all of us would be much the poorer. This debate has made an important contribution to the building of trust, understanding and co-operation across the food chain and also within the Assembly.
I commend the Committee for producing a report with such a wide scope, and which aims to create improved opportunities for producers to meet existing and future market demands, thereby increasing their potential profitability and market share.
It is fair to state that up to now there has been a degree of suspicion and lack of understanding among the links in the food chain, and this has hindered efforts to build trust among people and organisations that are ultimately dependent on each other for survival. Achieving trust in commercial relationships is absolutely essential in a fast-moving market place.
Trust can only be built on the basis of confidence that every link in the chain is getting a fair share of the profit. In relation to that, and to the remark that I think was made by MrMcHugh about beef cartels, I am aware of those allegations. The Office of Fair Trading is investigating the matter, and any evidence of a breach of competition rules should be submitted to the Office of Fair Trading. My Department will assist the Office of Fair Trading in any way possible, and I deplore any abuse of power should that be proven. I look forward to the outcome of the investigations.
If we can encourage greater understanding and transparency then we will have taken an important step in building an agri-food industry that can compete with the best and face the future with confidence.
I see this report as an excellent attempt to move beyond the all too familiar practice of assigning blame, seeking instead to find workable and long-lasting solutions to difficult problems. I was particularly pleased to be able to confirm in my reply to the Committee’s report that, for most of the recommendations directed towards my Department, work is already in progress, aimed at addressing the underlying issues and concerns. Examples include the ongoing efforts to encourage collaboration in the marketing of agricultural produce, the promotion of partnerships in the food chain, supporting marketing initiatives and quality assurance programmes, encouraging local sourcing and significant research and development in technology transfer commitments.
Some Members spoke about co-operation and collaboration. DrPaisley was the first to raise it. Collaborative marketing efforts, particularly those involving vertical links in the marketing chain, can generate significant benefits. My Department has actively encouraged collaboration in the marketing of agricultural produce by providing support to its marketing development scheme.
Initiatives may involve the creation of producer groups or, preferably, integrated partnerships involving different parts of the food chain. I have seen an example of that very recently on a visit to a processing plant, and it is indeed working very successfully. This provides one means by which the industry can start to address the various structural concerns that were raised in the Committee’s report.
Funding totalling £300,000 per annum has been available for this scheme, and I hope to increase this under the new Structure Funds proposals. I am also considering a proposal for inclusion within the Peace II programme which would provide funding to assist the establishment and development of suitably constituted producer groups which are responsive to market demands and are focused on the production of high quality agricultural produce and services.
However, I would caution those who believe that producer co-operation is the panacea for all our problems. Co-operation among producers can only generate worthwhile, sustainable benefits if it goes beyond the very narrow remit of seeking to acquire bargaining power. To be truly successful, producer co-operation must embrace the concept of partnership with other links in the marketing chain. It must move beyond the simple function of selling and into the much broader realm of marketing and all that that entails. That has been referred to by a number of Members. What is absolutely clear to me is that co-operation cannot be imposed by anyone, least of all by the Government. Business dealings in the food chain must be governed by commercial considerations and driven by the needs of the market. Nevertheless, My Department and I stand ready to help the different parts of the industry in developing whatever structures are appropriate to the circumstances, be they farmer co-operatives or other arrangements.
The group that I established to bring forward a strategic vision for the development of the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland is considering the issue of partnership and co-operation in the supply chain and will no doubt, come forward with recommendations in due course.
I want to turn briefly to the issue of markets. The Committee’s report noted that external markets are essential to the local agri-food industry. Over half of the sales of the Northern Ireland food and drinks processing sector are made outside Northern Ireland. Although the entry of UK retail multiples into the Northern Ireland market created some difficulties for local suppliers, it has also created a significant opportunity for those wishing to gain access to the wider UK, Continental distribution networks of these companies. In the beef sector, for example, a number of our local processors have been extremely successful in building up very substantial trade with major retail groups in Great Britain. Prior to the beef export ban, there were also significant trading links with the Dutch supermarkets, and we all hope that those will open up again soon.
There have been similar success stories with poultry, potatoes and vegetables. The efforts of all those who helped bring about these successes are to be applauded. Although export marketing is the primary responsibility of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, my Department works closely with it to assist as far as possible in the efforts to improve the marketing of Northern Ireland produce. Dr. Paisley raised this issue earlier, and I want to make the point that significant resources have already been spent in identifying market opportunities and promoting Northern Ireland food at food fairs and in helping companies to take advantage of export opportunities. I asked the vision group to consider how Northern Ireland food might be marketed to best advantage, and I look forward to its recommendations. Its members will, of course, be aware that £300,000 has already been committed to marketing and processing, and £400,000 to the promotion of pig meat.
I hope to take advantage of the advice from the Vision Group, but as Members will doubtless be aware, all of this will have to be in the context of the spending review. I will be competing with bids from other Departments, but I assure Members that I will do my very best to ensure that the interests of the agriculture industry will be to the fore.
I am also keen to promote the opportunities offered by new technology: e-commerce and information and communication technology will undoubtedly play an increasing role and offer new opportunities in market development. My recent announcement of our plans to develop a farmers’ portal is just one example of our efforts in this field.
Another, which is reflected in the recommendations of the Agriculture Committee, is the efforts of my Department to assist the development of the industry in the area of quality assurance. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is very supportive of quality assurance schemes, having been actively involved in encouraging their establishment and auditing their standards. However, such schemes tend to set the minimum acceptable product standard for many outlets. These minimum standards are readily available from alternative suppliers, and Northern Ireland farmers and processors should seek to exceed them if they wish to differentiate their products and achieve a price premium as a consequence.
The issue of local sourcing has been the subject of much comment, some made during today’s debate. Increased local sourcing has for some time been a key issue for my Department and for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Retailers are encouraged to increase their uptake of local produce, not only for sale in Northern Ireland, but also in Great Britain. All of the multiple retailers report that they have significantly increased their levels of business with Northern Ireland suppliers since they came to Northern Ireland. However, meeting the challenge of increased local sourcing is not just something for the Government, retailers or marketing bodies. The agri-food industry itself must make every effort to meet the demands of potential customers in terms of price, quality and service, and must be proactive in marketing those attributes.
That said, my Department can and does help Northern Ireland suppliers, particularly through technical advice and support, to take advantage of any identified opportunities to increase their business with retailers. I have seen evidence of that as I go around the various shows and see the amount of co-operation between my departmental advisers and the people working on the ground in the industry, both the farmers and the processors. I also believe that while there may be a natural desire to pursue the goal of import substitution, this should never be at the expense of restricting consumer choice; nor should we seek to avoid the competition posed by imports. Healthy competition in domestic markets will help ensure that our industry is also competitive in external markets where such a large part of its output must be sold. We have to remember that over 50% of our processed food goes to the export markets, and we have to compete globally. It is also worth bearing this in mind, lest we become too engrossed in the domestic market issue at the expense of the wider picture. A diversified marketing strategy is in the best long-term interests of the local industry.
The issue of prices is at the heart of many of the current problems of the agriculture industry. I know that there is a general perception that food processors and retailers are profiteering at the expense of primary producers and that there is an unfair distribution of profit through the food chain. I was therefore particularly interested in the conclusions of the Agriculture Committee that there is no evidence of excess profits among suppliers and retailers. I entirely agree with the Committee that primary producers must achieve a fair return for their efforts if the food chain is to remain viable. I also fully appreciate the good motives of those people who suggest that prices should be regulated in some way to ensure a fair return to all.
However, aside from the question of legality, I do not believe that this offers a long-term solution to the problems of the industry; rather, it would introduce a significant number of additional problems.
Even if we could regulate prices, that would generate fierce resistance from numerous quarters, not least consumers. Moreover, it would only work if Northern Ireland could be isolated from external market influences. Clearly this is impossible, illegal and highly undesirable. Northern Ireland must sell to, and be competitive in, external markets for over half of its produce. Isolating the Northern Ireland agri-food sector from external competitive forces would do great damage to its long-term development, hampering increases in both productivity and innovation. This would do no favours to the farming community, the processors or the industry as a whole.
I also believe that there is a risk of lasting damage to the local supply base, our countryside and the quality and choice available to consumers, if processors, retailers and consumers become over-reliant on the cheapest source of raw material that may be available at any given time.
I want to deal with some issues raised by the debate. MrSavage referred to brown rot in potatoes being imported. In Scotland, for example, where some of our seed potatoes come from, they have to be certified as healthy before they are exported. We do not have to accept them if they do not have that certification. The same does not apply to ware potatoes. I understand that brown rot has been found in a watercourse, not in the actual product. We are also constrained by EU regulations on restriction of imports. It is a matter of some concern, and I will watch the situation very carefully.
Mr McHugh referred to an all-Ireland approach to agriculture. I agree that that would be desirable. I am working to build improved co-operation, for instance in animal health. The vast bulk of agri-policy derives from the common agricultural policy, which tries to create a so-called level playing field. It is wrong to suggest that agri-policy differs markedly across the border, or generally in Europe.
Dr Paisley raised the issue of diversification. I agree that farm diversification is essential for the development of the industry. I have said on many occasions that it is high on my list of priorities. There are already some proposals on agri-forestry and organic farming in the rural development plan. I am looking to my vision group to provide definitive advice in that area.
Mr Dallat referred to Loughry College. I thank the Member for his remarks about co-operation between the college and my Department and, indeed, the industry as a whole. I have seen some very exciting examples in recent times of co-operation between Loughry College and the industry and how that has benefited people. Products are now on the market as a result of that co-operation. I agree with Mr Dallat’s remarks about the need for co-operation right across the industry and between all of us, in relation to the problems that are facing us at the moment.
Dr McCrea explained that state aid inhibits direct financial aid to producers. We have done everything possible to help the Northern Ireland pig producers. For instance, we paid half a million pounds after the Maltons fire. At the moment, there is additional money which was made available at the agricultural summit in England.
We are currently looking at the Pig Restructuring Scheme, which is going through Europe. Animal welfare is a serious concern of consumers here. I accept that certain other member states may not be as assiduous as we are in enforcing standards, and I have raised those concerns with fellow Ministers in London and in Europe. I have the support of the other Ministers in the United Kingdom on that area, and we will be strongly promoting the idea that all European countries should follow our example in it.
In looking at this report, we need to be creative in our thinking on how to improve the returns to producers. I am looking forward to the ideas that will emerge from my vision group of industry experts, which assists us in this matter.
I finish on a very important point. In our desire to improve the functioning of the food chain and, in particular, the rewards to the primary producer, we should at no point forget the primacy of the consumer. That point was also made by Dr Paisley. Satisfying consumer demand must always remain our central focus. If we ever forget this, then all our efforts will come to nothing, because if there is one thing that is true in all relations of this kind, it is the old adage that the customer is always right. It is the customer that we have to satisfy. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Before calling the Chairman of the Committee for the winding-up speech, I wish to make reference to a matter which arose at a meeting of the Agriculture Committee on 30 June. I refer to it because it is relevant to other meetings of the Agriculture Committee, to meetings of other Committees and to sittings in the Chamber. At that meeting, those members who were milk producers properly declared their interest in the subject under debate, and went on to contribute to the discussions. However, at the point where a decision on the advice to be given to the Minister was being taken, they decided to withdraw from the meeting. Any decision on a withdrawal from Committee proceedings at any time is, of course, entirely a matter of conscience for the members, but I want to underline what the Chairman of the Committee advised at that stage. He indicated that while it was quite proper, and indeed a requirement, for members to declare an interest, whether it is of an agricultural or any other matter, in a Committee or in the Chamber, it was not necessary for them to withdraw from the proceedings or, indeed, to refrain from voting.
That matter was made clear by the Chairman, but I want to underline it, not least because some Members may not be fully familiar with these requirements and may be excessively cautious. It is a good fault, but it can sometimes leave proper representation unmade. That is why I want to put this on the record for these proceedings and for other proceedings of the Assembly, in the Chamber and in Committee.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Speaker, I welcome the statement you have made, because it seems that outside the Committee there was some misunderstanding and comments were made about it. I made it clear that if there was an interest, it had to be declared. However, that did not mean that members had to leave the meeting or not cast their votes.
Those who left the meeting, and did not cast their votes, did so because they did not want the general public to think that they were voting to put money into their own pockets, as they were engaged in that part of the industry. That was a very honourable thing to do, but it was not necessary under the law. The law says that a member has to declare, and then whatever action he takes after that is his own responsibility. I welcome your statement.
I welcome part of the Minister’s statement. I am glad that she extends a little welcome to our report, but she seems to think that her vision committee is going to have better things to offer.
The Minister has been defending the Department’s activities. We are not asking the Department to mount a defence today. We have not criticised it, but we have made recommendations about what it should do now. The Minister has not informed me if she is going to implement the recommendations we have made. She has focused on defending her department and her officials very well, but she has said nothing new about the recommendations in this report. We have squeezed from the retailers a promise to offer their expertise to help the producers achieve expert marketing and trade development. We have insisted that her Department is one of the best agricultural departments in the world, in both science and business realms.
Some time ago I visited the universal headquarters of potatoes in Peru, and the person in charge, right at the top of the table, was an Ulsterman, trained here by the Department. The expertise of her Department should be tapped, along with the retailers’ expertise, to help the primary producers.
The farmers have little chance when negotiating with the big retailers. They can only say that they have a quality product and want a fair price for that product. They cannot get that at present because all the big retailers and the meat producers have divided and conquered producers. We need the primary producers to unite and give themselves a fighting chance to save their industry and help their people.
There is a battle between import substitution and consumer choice, but the Department should be encouraging consumers to buy Ulster produce. Across the water, authorities encourage consumers to buy British produce. There is no reason for the Department here not to lend its weight to this idea. We need to ensure that local producers give the consumers the choice they want. If we have consumer choice backing our own farms, the supermarkets will be forced to source here and not outside. This is a very big battle that we need to face.
Secondly, the Minister is concerned about the confidentiality of the statistics on the targets for local sourcing. This does not concern me, because ultimately the big retailers will willingly reveal their profits to their investors. They are not afraid to reveal the extent of their profit-making to those who invest money in their companies.
The other day I received an interesting piece of correspondence from Sainsbury plc., in which the company highlighted its commitment to doubling the amount of Northern Ireland produce that it sources.
If it is prepared to give that commitment, surely all the other retailers should be forced to do the same. If that were to happen, farmers would be assured that their produce would be bought at a price which paid them for producing it. You cannot ask the farmers to go on when you look at how their incomes have tragically, catastrophically, fallen.
I am pushing these recommendations to the Minister. We need help from her Department; we need the expertise of her Department; and we need finance to help us with this price determination. The Committee is not saying to people that we want them to fix prices. That is not what we are about at all. Perhaps the Minister will take note that the Office of Fair Trading found that some time ago a cartel was operating in Northern Ireland, and it was all covered up. In fact, we only found out from one person when we were examining him at our Committee. How was it that nobody knew that a cartel was operating in the meat market in Northern Ireland? It was before the Minister took office, but I am asking her today to put her weight and her Department’s weight behind a fair reward for the farmers and to tell the big men in this business that they must see that farmers get a fair price for their produce.
It is interesting to note that Sainsbury’s is now on record as saying it invests a significant margin each week to ensure that its potato packers remain profitable and cover their overhead costs. That is a big undertaking. It is now in a relationship with its potato packers to ensure that they get a fair price and that when there is a fluctuation in price, is taken account of. If that can be done for potato packers, it can be done for other producers, and these things must be done. Sainsbury’s has said that our report is excellent and well balanced, but my Committee will not be looking for words from Sainsbury’s, we will be looking for action.
Likewise, I am saying to the Minister today that we are looking for action from her and from her Department. We want to see how many of these recommendations are going to be acted upon, and if we can make progress. It is all very well for the Minister to say that we are all very happy in the Committee and that it is nice that we are united. We ask her now to join the band, to come into step with what we have put before her today and to apply her Department to bringing these recommendations to fruition for the good of the farming community.
I welcome this debate today. I appreciate the contributions that were made by the members of the Committee who took part, and I appreciate the contributions from the three Members who are not members of the Committee. We have had a good debate. I do regret, Sir, that it was at this hour. This debate should have taken place in the morning when all the press would be here. Nevertheless, many positive recommendations have been made. The Committee does not want to be at war with the Minister or her officials. We do want to ensure that our reasonable recommendations are examined.
If the Minister wants to knock them, we will be glad to meet with her in the Committee and to hear from her own lips what she accepts or rejects. I say that these are reasonable points. The Minister has admitted that we have not been attributing blame but have been offering something positive. The Committee was determined not to be strong in diagnosis but to be strong in prescription.
This is the first item on the prescription; there are two others coming and probably a fourth one in connection with fishing. I say to the Minister "Be gracious and kind to the patient. Do not let Mr McGrady put you off. Tell yourself that you will do something for the farming community." If she succeeds in doing that, people will always be under obligation to her. She has a great challenge before her and she should take it up. Along these lines there are opportunities for her, and her Department, to help us in our hour of need.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly accepts and endorses the findings and recommendations contained in the Agriculture Committee’s report ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer?’ and urges the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and everyone associated with the industry to take all necessary steps to implement the recommendations.
The sitting was suspended at 5.51 pm.